Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock.

The CLERK AT THE TABLE (Sir Courtenay Ilbert) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills,—Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, introduced pursuant to the Provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Lochaber Water Power Bill (Substituted Bill).

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (COST OF PASSAGES).

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India what has been the result of his communication with the Government of India with regard to the cheapening of the cost of passages for Government officials to and from India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The question is still under consideration in India. A
telegram was sent last week to the Government of India, asking what stage the inquiry had reached. I await their final answer.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS (ELECTIONS).

Sir C. YATE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the number of bogus candidates who have been put forward at the recent elections in India, he will now consult the Government of India as to the advisability of requiring a deposit for each candidate for election to the imperial and provincial legislative councils, to be returned if the candidate secures a prescribed number of votes, but otherwise to be forfeited, the same as in the United Kingdom, and also as provided for in the new Constitution for Malta?

Mr. MONTAGU: I will communicate my hon. and gallant Friend's question to the Government of India, who will no doubt review their original decision in the light of the experience since gained.

RUPEE EXCHANGE.

Mr. CLOUGH: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can make any statement on the extent to which native traders are refusing to meet British liabilities at any rate of exchange except 10 rupees to the £; and whether the Government is taking any action or can take any action to relieve the existing tension arising therefrom in commercial circles?

Mr. MONTAGU: I understand that most of the important Indian piece goods associations have passed resolutions against the payment of drafts under a two-shilling rate of exchange. The Government of India have informed me that they do not consider that they can usefully intervene in the matter. At a meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of India and Ceylon held last January the finance member of the Government of India strongly criticised the policy of refusal to meet contractual obligations, and I need hardly say that I entirely share his view of the position.

GOVERNMENT MOTOR VEHICLES.

Mr. MANVILLE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether an order for motor car chassis required by the Govern-
ment of India has been placed in Italy; and, if so, will he state the number of the chassis so ordered and their value?

Mr. MONTAGU: Orders for 144 motor vehicles of various kinds have been placed in Italy on behalf of the Government of India at a total cost of approximately £70,000.

Mr. MANVILLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that in times such as these the Government of India ought to have ordered material of that sort from Italy, seeing what the position of the motor car industry is in this country?

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Is it the policy of the Government of India to buy cheaply or to assist in the employment of British workers?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India have to have regard to the interests of the Indian taxpayers. They would naturally prefer to buy here rather than abroad. The circumstances connected with this particular purchase, which I understand were ambulance cars, were that there was ready a surplus stock belonging to the Italian Government, and they were required to meet an urgent demand. British firms are going to tender for the remainder of the supply.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these chassis were new ones or cars which had been used during the War?

Mr. MONTAGU: I understand that they were surplus stock belonging to the Italian Government, as far as the majority of the cars are concerned. I am not sure whether they were new or had been used during the War, but if my Noble Friend will put another question I will ascertain.

Mr. MANVILLE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that British manufacturers are preparing special designs for motor vehicles at the request of the India Office and submitting vehicles for trial in April; and will he, under these circumstances, see that the requirements of the India Office for motor transport in India are satisfied through British manufacturers?

Mr. MONTAGU: Sample motor vehicles are being prepared by British manufacturers for trial in India. Provided that these samples prove to be satisfactory after trial, the High Commissioner will give the British manufacturers full opportunities of tendering for any supplies that may be required, and will give every attention to such tenders.

PUNJAB DISTURBANCES.

Sir C. YATE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken by the Government of India to secure the safety and interests of the officials and non-officials in India who either prepared the cases or gave evidence against men who were convicted of conspiring and abetting the waging of war against the King in the late rebellion in the Punjab or who have manifested their loyalty in other ways, and who now, as stated in the Press, are being insulted, defamed, and attacked simply because they have a record of loyal service during the War?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have seen the letter to which the hon. and gallant Baronet refers. I am addressing inquiries to the Government of India on the subject; meanwhile I am placing in the Library a list of those in the Punjab and Delhi whom the Government has rewarded or thanked for good services during the disturbances. The list, it will be seen, contains over 1,400 names.

TEA (EXPORT DUTY).

Sir J. D. REES: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the export duty on tea presses heavily upon an industry exposed at present to many adverse influences; and whether, in view of the comparatively satisfactory condition of Indian finances, the Government of India will abolish this novel additional impost?

Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. Friend will have seen that the Government of India have found themselves under the necessity of raising additional revenue amounting to 19 crores in the coming financial year. In the curcumstances it is not surprising that they have not seen their way to proposing any remissions of taxation.

ARMY (ESHEE REPORT).

Sir J. D. REES: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to give the House any information regarding action taken, or to be taken, upon the Esher Report?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am not yet in a position to announce any conclusions on the recommendations of the Esher Committee, except on certain proposals in Part V., regarding which I hope to make an announcement shortly, as I stated in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Melton on the 23rd February.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the position altered by the resolution passed in the Legislative Assembly of India as regards the Esher Report? Does that resolution alter the position as regards the action to be taken upon it?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am not sure to which resolution my hon. Friend refers.

BURMA REFORM BILL.

Sir J. D. REES: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for India what decision has been taken as regards the Burma Bill.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India when the Burma Reform Bill will be introduced; and whether he will give sufficient interval between the introduction of the Bill and its reference to the Standing Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to enable the opinions of the various persons interested to be made public?

Mr. MILLS: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is now able to state on what date he expects to introduce the Burma Reforms Bill.

Mr. MONTAGU: I hope it will be introduced in another place this week.

Sir J. D. REES: Will it be referred to a Select Committee?

Mr. MONTAGU: I think so.

CIVIL SERVICE.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether
the Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill Clause 36, expressed the definite opinion that in the case of members of the Indian services who felt that they could not usefully take part in the new reform schemes they should be offered an equivalent career elsewhere, or that they should be allowed to retire on proportionate pensions; whether, in consequence of this recommendation, members of the Indian Civil Service memorialised the Secretary of State with a view to securing such pensions; whether the Secretary of State, in his despatch to the Viceroy of October, 1920, stated that he would not consent to a scale of pensions which it would be open to any member of the service to claim as a matter of right on a mere statement that he found himself unable to serve under the new conditions; upon what grounds he has overridden the decision of the Joint Select Committee; and what is the present position with regard to members of the Indian Civil Service who desire to retire on proportionate pensions?

Mr. MONTAGU: The despatch to which my hon. Friend refers does not in any way override the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee, which can be adopted without devising a scale of pension. I can assure the House that any case of the kind which comes before the Secretary of State in Council will be dealt with in strict accord with the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee and the pledges that I have given to the House.

Dr. McDONALD: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will take into consideration the hardship of many old well-tried Indian Civil servants who retired prior to 1913, and have not, therefore, benefited by the increased pension; and will he take steps to place these pensioners on an equal footing with their younger brethren, especially recognising the fact that their increasing years is a bar to other remunerative employment?

Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education on my behalf to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Melton on the 28th October last. I will send the hon. Member a copy.

PEOVINOIAL AND LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether in the instructions issued to the governors of Indian provinces or presidencies they are directed to safeguard all members of His Majesty's services in the legitimate exercise of their functions and in the enjoyment of all recognised rights and privileges, and to see that no order of the Local Provincial Council or of the Local Legislative Council shall be so framed that any of the diverse interests of, or arising from, race, religion, education, social condition, wealth, or any other circumstance may receive unfair advantage, or may unfairly be deprived of privileges or advantages which they have heretofore enjoyed; and whether he is responsible to Parliament to see that governors of provinces act in accordance with his instructions?

Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member has correctly quoted parts of certain passages in the instructions issued over the Royal Sign Manual to the governors of "Governors' provinces." The answer to the last part of this question is in the affirmative.

Sir W. DAVISON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that in the preamble of the Government of India Act it is expressly stated that the Imperial Parliament, in considering the gradual development of self-governing institutions in India, must be guided by the co-operation received from those in whom new opportunities of service will be conferred and by the extent to which it is found that confidence can be reposed in their sense of responsibility, he will inform the House whether Members of Parliament will be able to ascertain from the Secretary of State from time to time as to the manner in which the various provincial councils are dealing with matters committed to them so that Parliament may be guided as to its future action regarding the conferring of further responsibilities on such provincial councils?

Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions in Section 84A of the amended Government of India Act for the appointment of the first Statutory Commission for the very purpose which he has in view. Parliament is, of course,
fully entitled to seek information, but I trust it will not seek to intervene in matters specifically entrusted to Indian legislatures.

Sir W. DAVISON: I understand that this Parliament can ascertain facts which occur in these legislatures or with regard to the action of the governors without interfering with what actually takes place?

Mr. MONTAGU: I always desire to place at the disposal of the House any information of this kind.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was requested to take a question off the Paper to-day which related solely to a question of fact and nothing else?

DR. A. D. DENNING.

Mr. THOMAS GRIFFITHS: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Dr. A. D. Denning, of Stafford, entered into a contract with the Indian Government for five years' service in India; that at the end of three years the contract was terminated on medical grounds which were afterwards found to be erroneous; that subsequently it was claimed and upheld that, despite any contract, the services of a servant could be terminated at the will and pleasure of the Crown; that the India Office has since granted Dr. Denning £500, which is not sufficient to cover his costs in the legal action; and that consequently Dr. Denning is without compensation for the loss of his appointment; whether this case will have further consideration; and whether, in order that men of ability may be encouraged to enter into these contracts, he will consider the advisability of abandoning the claim that service can be terminated at the will and pleasure of the Crown?

Mr. MONTAGU: The facts referred to in the first two parts of the question are generally as stated except that the medical grounds on which Dr. Denning's contract was terminated were not found to be erroneous. As regards the third part of the question, Dr. Denning subsequently brought an action for breach of contract or, in the alternative, for wrongful dismissal; the Secretary of State for
India in Council contended that Dr. Denning's service was terminated in accordance with his agreement by which he undertook to obey the rules prescribed for his branch of the public service; these rules provide for the termination of an officer's duty on grounds of ill-health; but the case was settled on a preliminary point of law that no action can lie against the Crown for the termination of such service at the pleasure of the Crown; in view of certain comments made by Mr. Justice Bailhache on the form of the agreement (an old form which was altered some years ago) Dr. Denning was granted by the Secretary of State for India in Council £500 on account of his coats; I am not aware that this sum is insufficient for the purpose, nor that he has any claim, on the merits, to compensation for the loss of his appointment. I do not think that this particular case calls for further consideration. As regards the last part of the question, I am advised that it would be improper to introduce in the contracts referred to any words purporting to limit the right of the Crown to dispense with the services of its officers, but this right would naturally be used, if at all, only in very exceptional circumstances.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under our commercial institutions and industrial arrangements employers and workmen get equality so far as notice is concerned, and why are these civil servants to be treated in a different way from the industrial workers and employers in this country?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am not familiar with private employment. Of course, analogies are always very dangerous things, and I should have to consider the exact application of the analogy which the hon. Member desires to make.

Mr. ORMSY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that Dr. Denning, by the action of the Government of India, has suffered very severely in prospects, and although £500 may go some way towards compensating him there are other considerations in his case which ought to be continually in the mind of the Government with a view to reinstating this man in something like the position he had before he took service under the Government of Bengal. Will
the right hon. Gentleman look once again into these contracts and see if some Clause cannot be inserted safeguarding the interests of persons who take service in this way?

Mr. MONTAGU: The form of contract has been altered since Dr. Denning signed with a view to obviating some of the difficulties. I would point out that the Council of India, in regard to Dr. Denning, have acted within the law in recognition of the difficulties of his position.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: If the contract has been altered, has it been to the advantage of the civil servants?

Mr. MONTAGU: I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the new form of contract and the old one, and then the hon. Member can see for himself. I think the new form makes the position quite clear.

RAILWAY OFFICERS (WAR SERVICE).

Mr. RENDALL: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether certain officers of the Indian State railways when the War broke out were given 20 months' work at Army Headquarters, Q Branch, India, then detailed for active service with the Mesopotamia Expeditionary Force; in 1916 were placed on recruiting duty for Mesopotamia railways, and embarked for Basrah July, 1916, and served with the Mesopotamia Expeditionary Force till 14th July, 1920; whether during the whole period such officers wore military officers' uniforms with badges of rank and were subject to military law; why they were given only relative rank and no commission and were debarred from holding their Indian volunteer commission, which lapsed from date of embarkation, although other railway officers in France and East Africa and other departmental officers, such as posts and telegraphs, were in Mesopotamia granted commissions; whether these officers have constantly made representations as to the unfair way they have been treated; and why, if officers of the Postal Department in Mesopotamia were granted commissions at an advanced date, the same course cannot be taken with railway officers, especially those who held volunteer commissioned rank in India?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have no information on the subject, but will inquire of the Government of India.

Mr. RENDALL: When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to get the information which will enable him to answer this question?

Mr. MONTAGU: It is very difficult to get the information. I will see if I can obtain it by telegraph.

IMPORT DUTIES.

Sir J. RANDLES: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India is it a fact that increased duties on imports to India are imposed from to-day, following the new India Budget; and are any steps being taken or likely to be taken by which Empire goods will receive preferential treatment in India?

Mr. MONTAGU: Increased duties were imposed as from yesterday. Simultaneously an announcement has with my approval been made in India that a Commission will be appointed to examine, with reference to all the interests concerned, into the future fiscal policy of the Government of India, including the desirability of adopting the principle of Imperial Preference. The House will realise that no decision regarding Imperial Preference can be taken until the Commission reports.

Sir W. JOHNSON-HICKS: Can we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he will be a whole-hearted supporter of Imperial Preference?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am very anxious that in any fiscal arrangement devised for the Empire, India will take her place as a free partner in the British Empire following the general Imperial practice

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PRIZE MONEY

Viscount CURZON: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how much prize money has been paid to officers and men of the Royal Navy to date what is the total amount of the prize fund; how much of this fund will be available for distribution to the Royal Navy; and is it intended to issue a balance sheet at an [...]arly date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): The amount of prize money authorised for payment to members of the naval forces to date is approximately £4,750,000. A sum of £7,500,000 has so far been received for the Naval Prize Fund, but it cannot be stated how much more than the original appropriation of £5,500,000 will be available for further distribution, until the various Prize Court accounts are cleared up, and the total amount of claims ranking against the Fund under the rulings of the Naval Prize Tribunal has been ascertained. Meanwhile all the balance in hand is kept invested for the benefit of the Fund. The Prize Fund accounts are laid before the House annually in accordance with the requirements of the Naval Prize Act. That for the current year ending on the 31st March, 1921, will be completed at the earliest date possible.

Viscount CURZON: Is it contemplated making a second distribution of prize money to officers and men of the Royal Navy?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether, when it was seen there will be an extra sum in hand, something on account will not be paid to those entitled to it, in view of the fact that they are extremely short of money and many are out of employment?

Sir J. CRAIG: I will consider what can be done in that matter.

MOTOR LAUNCHES, HAMBLE.

Colonel BURN: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the inconvenience caused to the inhabitants of Hamble on account of the continued occupation of the river by motor launches; and, if these motor launches are to be disposed of, whether he will arrange that they should be moved periodically to other harbours so that more of the public may have an opportunity of seeing them, while, at the same time, less inconvenience would be caused to yachtsmen and the inhabitants of Hamble if the passage of the river were open?

Sir J. CRAIG: The boats in question have already been disposed of by sale and are no longer the property of the Admiralty.

NEW CONSTRUCTION.

Viscount CURZON: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can say what will be the relative strength of America, Japan, and Great Britain in capital ships in 1924 and 1925 if the present building proposals are carried out, and if ships at present under construction are completed; and whether he can indicate how many ships in each case will embody the lessons learnt in the Great War?

Sir J. CRAIG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.
As regards the second part, the figures are as follow:


1924.


Great Britain.
U.S.A.
Japan.


1
18
8


1925.


Great Britain.
US.A.
Japan.


1
18
11

Sir F. FLANNERY: When will the Report of the Cabinet Committee on this question be issued?

Sir J. CRAIG: I have no information on that point.

PETERHEAD LABOURERS.

Mr. W. THORNE: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why labourers at the Harbour of Refuge, Peterhead, Scotland, are the only men who have not participated in the award in accordance with the agreement of the building trades of 1920; and whether he will take action in the matter?

Sir J. CRAIG: The agreement to which my hon. Friend refers is not applicable to the labourers in question. The labourers employed at Peterhead are paid not less than the district rate.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not the fact that in all previous agreements arrived at between the building trade employers and employed the labourers in question have received the advantages conceded? Does
the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is rather hard on these men that they should not participate in the agreement arrived at in 1920, when at the same time craft union men are getting an advance of something like 4d. per hour?

Sir J. CRAIG: My answer here does not apply to the labourers in question. The labourers employed there are paid not less than the district rate.

CAPITAL SHIPS.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether a decision has been come to as to the building of capital ships for the Navy in the next financial year; and, if so, will he say what that decision is?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Are the Cabinet alive to the grave international importance of this question and its grave effect on the finances of the ensuing year, and can they not give us an assurance that before any Naval Vole comes on we shall know something of what their policy is going to be?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Naturally this subject, as I stated in answer to a previous question, will be discussed on the Naval Estimates which will be introduced in the next few weeks.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: In view of the position which this question occupies internationally and financially, I beg leave to give notice that I will raise it on the Adjournment to-night.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the last two Navy Estimates were introduced the First Lord was unable to state what the policy was, and when is the Government going to reach a naval policy?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken. My right hon. Friend stated what the policy of the Government then was, and I hope it will be possible to state it again this year.

Major NALL: Is the House to understand that the Government is unable to say what is the use of a battleship?

TRADE BOARDS.

Major Sir KEITH FRASER: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that under the Trade Boards Acts it is not practicable to secure a reduction in a minimum rate fixed under a period of approximately nine months, whether he is aware that unemployment is caused and is likely to be caused thereby; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to remedy this defect?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension as to the length of time required by a Trade Board to effect a variation in minimum rates of wages. When the Amending Bill of 1918 was before the House, representations were made that too rapid fluctuations of wages were prejudicial to industry. For this reason it was decided that minimum rates of wages should not normally be varied by a Trade Board until they had been in operation for six months. Power was, however, reserved to the Minister in special circumstances to allow a Trade Board to propose a variation of rates at any time.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that very strenuous efforts are now being made by employers connected with Trade Boards to bring about wholesale wage reductions in the trades affected by the Trade Boards Act?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that arises here.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is a much larger question.

Sir K. FRASER: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the amount of unemployment which is being caused owing to the high cost of production, he will withhold his assent to any further increases in minimum rates which various Trade Boards continue to make?

Dr. MACNAMARA: In the consideration of the question of confirming rates of wages which may be submitted to me by Trade Boards, I shall, of course, have full regard to the circumstances to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. I may add that inquiry shows that the amount of unemployment in trades covered by Trade Boards is not appreciably greater than that in other trades.

Major NALL: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is proceeding to set up 26 more Trade Boards for the wholesale and retail distributing trades; what will be the total additional expenditure for staffs in connection with these Boards; whether they are necessary owing to allegations of sweated conditions in these industries; and what are the 26 different trades for which these Trade Boards are required?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Having regard to the conditions existing in the distributive trades, I propose to apply the Acts to the distributive trades as circumstances permit. It is impossible to state the number of Trade Boards which it will be necessary to establish, but the addition to expenditure will be comparatively small.

Major NALL: What are the trades to which it is proposed to extend the Act?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I said "as circumstances permit." I have their case before me. I will give the hon. and gallant Gentleman early notice.

Major NALL: Is it not a fact that the Ministry has already given notice to 26 different trades that they are to be included? Is it a fact that 26 trades will not add to the clerical staff?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No.

Mr. KILEY: Would it not be better to consult those industries first?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The closest and most careful consultation is made. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend is right in saying it has been finally decided to establish trade boards in 26 cases. They are before me. I am giving all the consideration I can to them. I will raise the matter and let him know.

Captain TUDOR-REES: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, owing to the minimum rates of wages fixed by Trade Boards for the dressmaking and millinery trade, large numbers of workpeople have been thrown out of employment; and whether he will suspend the operation of the rates during the present period of depression?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I should be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend would be good enough to supply me with specific cases of the kind described in his ques-
tion, in order that inquiry may be made into the circumstances. The Trade Boards have power to propose variations of the rates, and I should be prepared to place before them such facts as my hon. and gallant Friend may supply. The only means by which the rates could be suspended would be by the withdrawal of the trades from the scope of the operation of the Acts by Special Order, and I am not prepared to contemplate such a course on the facts before me.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Mr. FORREST: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the records of women [...]n receipt of unemployment pay show the number who possess knowledge of domestic service work; if so, what that number is in each English county; and whether the officials of his Department do their best to impress on all these women with some knowledge of household duties the desirability of filling some of the innumerable vacant places which still await applicants?

Dr. MACNAMARA: There were 13,261 women in receipt of unemployment benefit on 11th February who were registered fur domestic service, including service in hotels, boarding houses, etc. Corresponding figures for each county are not available. The Exchanges make every effort to fill domestic service vacancies. One of the great difficulties is, however, that the chief shortage is of resident servants, while the supply of suitable applicants mainly consists of non-resident servants. For instance, on 7th January there were on the average six resident vacancies for every suitable woman on the register, and on the other hand six women on the register for every non-resident vacancy.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Is the Department going to continue the payment of this out-of-work donation to women who undoubtedly will not accept the employment placed at their disposal?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Act makes full provision for that. Applicants for benefit must be capable of, available for, and willing to undertake suitable work. That is the law. If is for the Exchange to refuse or suspend benefit, and then the
matter goes to the Insurance Officer, and the Court of Referees, and, if necessary, to the Umpire.

Sir F. HALL: Does the Employment Department refuse to give this out-of-work donation, or does the Department over which my right hon. Friend presides so admirably treat it, not with that care and attention which naturally it should have, with the result that many of these women get the payment, and thereby stultify the desires of those who wish to give them employment?

Sir F. FLANNERY: Will my right hon. Friend state what is the policy of the Department in distinguishing between resident and non-resident applicants for domestic service?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: In view of the great number of women who could be placed in domestic employment, what steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to arrange for classes so that these women may be trained in domestic work?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is becoming a Debate.

Mr. INSKIP: Cannot we have an answer to the question as to what is the Ministry of Labour's policy in distinguishing between, resident and non-resident applicants?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I do not quite follow what my hon. Friend desires. Does he mean a classification of the applicants?

Sir F. FLANNERY: My right hon. Friend has distinguished between those who are applicants for resident and those for non-resident domestic service. I am asking him what is the rule of the Department in distinguishing or dividing such applicants into one class or the other.

Dr. MACNAMARA: In determining whether or not the applicant is entitled to benefit?

Sir F. FLANNERY: Yes

Dr. MACNAMARA: The rules are precisely the same. We have to carry out the law, and I trust that the officials do so with proper care and attention. The law says that candidates must be capable of, available for, and unable to obtain suitable employment.

Mr. INSKIP: You added "and willing."

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, and willing to take suitable employment. It is the duty of the local Exchange to question the right to benefit. It would then be referred to the Insurance Officer, and the aggrieved person has open to her the Court of Referees and the Umpire to determine whether or not the benefit should be awarded or forfeited.

Sir W. DAVISON: In ascertaining whether the applicant is capable of performing the work, are the women questioned as to whether they have ever been in domestic service, or merely asked what their immediately preceding employmnt was?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot compel an answer to any question. No doubt, if a question of that kind were put, and a candidate was disinclined to answer it, that would unquestionably raise the presumption that it was a case in which the right to benefit should be further examined.

Sir F. FLANNERY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I happen to be one of the Court of Referees, and practically the question does arise whether or not an applicant who has had partial domestic service and is offered complete domestic service and refuses it, is available for benefit or not. My question is, What is the regulation made by the Ministry of Labour to distinguish between these two classes?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that a definite question had better be put down on that point.

Major MOLSON: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the discontent caused by obliging women employed in domestic service in houses connected with business establishments to come under the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920; whether a maid so employed who changes into domestic service in a private house would lose all benefits from the insurance money that she had paid; and whether he could see his way to remedy that injustice by exempting them from the Act as coming under the heading of domestic service?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Under Part II (b) of the First Schedule of the Act, employ-
ment in domestic service in a trade or business carried on for the purposes of gain is compulsorily insurable. I am not aware of any widespread discontent with this provision of the Act. A domestic servant entering private service after paying contributions under the Act would retain the full benefit of these contributions for a year, and thereafter may at any time within five years from last paying contributions again secure the benefit of these contributions, if she re-enters insured employment and pays a further number of 12 contributions.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that women in domestic service before the War are registering for out-of-work pay for their war-time occupations; and whether, in view of the great demand for domestic servants, he is taking any steps to make it compulsory for these people to state their pre-War occupations?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Women previously engaged in domestic service who paid Unemployment Insurance contributions during the War are entitled to claim unemployment benefit in respect of these contributions, provided that they satisfy the statutory conditions, one of which is that they must be available for work but unable to obtain suitable employment. Applicants for benefit are asked to furnish all necessary information for determining the occupation for which they are best suited. I have no power to compel applicants to answer questions, but any refusal to answer relevant inquiries would obviously lead to the suspension of the claim and its reference to a Court of Referees.

Mr. SWAN: Is it a fact that many of these domestics are required to be reengaged in service at pre-War rates and can we get an assurance that they will not be requested to work more than 24 hours a day?

OUTWORKERS.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the strong feeling that exists among outworkers at their exclusion from the Unemployment Insurance Acts of 1920; and whether he will state why these workers are excluded, seeing that they are in certain industries a regular part of the machinery of production and that
this was recognised by their inclusion in the Health Insurance Acts and in unemployment gratuity paid last year?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The nature of the employment followed by outworkers is such that it would in general be impracticable to check in any satisfactory manner the fact that outworkers are unemployed and unable to obtain work. It is for this reason that outworkers have been excluded from the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, as they were similarly excluded from the Unemployment Insurance Acts of 1911 and 1916.

GAMEKEEPERS.

Major MOLSON: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that gamekeepers and the employers of gamekeepers are both strongly opposed to his decision of 23rd December, 1920, to the effect that gamekeepers must come under the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920; did he receive a letter, dated 6th December, 1920, conveying a resolution from the Gamekeepers' Association embodying their objections; and can he now state why he found himself unable to give effect to their objections?

Dr. MACNAMARA: A letter dated 6th December, 1920, was received from the Gamekeepers' Association. It did not, however, contain any grounds on which it was possible to except gamekeepers from the provisions of the Act. Under Section 10 (1) (i) of the Act, it is open for any person aggrieved by a decision of the Minister to appeal from that decision to the High Court.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great feeling of injustice that exists among the gamekeepers all over the country, on the ground that, while foresters and all agricultural labourers are excluded from the Act, gamekeepers have suddenly been included; and will he take steps to obtain from the Gamekeepers' Association the grounds which have been laid before the Department—I have done it myself—on which they desire exemption?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have the grounds of exemption urged in the letter now before me. They are (1) the permanence of the employment; and (2) the fact that on change of employment they do not use the employment exchange. Those are
not grounds on which I could act. In any case, however, the aggrieved person has the right of appeal to the High Court.

Major MOLSON: If it is not the wish of either the employers or the employed in a certain branch, are they still obliged to come in under the Act?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly; insurance is insurance. We cannot allow anyone at their will to be relieved of the opportunities of contributing to insurance. If they are not established, and under no circumstances liable to be unemployed, then, if they are in an insured trade, we ask them to be insured.

Major MOLSON: To whom do the funds from the gamekeepers go?

Dr. MACNAMARA: They go to the Insurance Fund, so that if any gamekeeper is hereafter out of employment he may get the benefit.

Sir F. HALL: rose
—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We must not argue the question.

WOMEN.

Viscount CURZON: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken by the Government to relieve unemployment amongst women; whether the institution by local authorities of training classes for unemployed women would come under the heads of works of public utility for the purposes of receiving public grants in aid; and whether Labour Exchanges, when dealing with unemployed men and women, have any system for notifying offers of employment in other areas than that for which the applicant is registered?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As my Noble and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, women are entitled to unemployment benefit subject to the same conditions as those applicable to men. The institution of relief works providing employment suitable for women is beset with difficulties, and has not hitherto been found practicable. The conditions governing public grants in aid for works of public utility do not enable such grants to be made in aid of training classes. As regards the last part of the question, vacancies which cannot be filled locally are circulated to all Employment Ex-
changes throughout the Kingdom by means of the "National Clearing House Gazette," which is publicly exhibited in the waiting rooms of Employment Exchanges. At the present time, however, owing to the widespread unemployment, there are in general few opportunites for transferring workpeople from one district to another, and such opportunities as occur are greatly hampered by the shortage of housing, accommodation.

Viscount CURZON: Could it not be considered whether training classes for women, such as are suggested in the question, could be instituted under Lord St. David's scheme?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is a matter of the conditions under which Lord St. David's Committee make the grant. I will go into it, but the Noble Lord must not take it that I can give any assurance.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Captain BROWN: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any records to show the present number of unemployed agricultural workers; whether he is aware that there is a great quantity of work available in country districts; and what is the cause of unemployment existing in agriculture when both work and workers are available?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of agricultural workers on the registers of Employment Exchanges on the 7th January, 1921, was 6,162, of whom 4,603 were farm labourers and 204 were women—a rate of unemployment of less than 1 per cent. The figures apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, and the number out of work in any district is not considerable. The number of applications from employers for workpeople at the same date was 285.

COMPARATIVE STATISTICS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 62.
asked the Minister of Labour how the rates of unemployment pay per head per week in this country compare with the rates obtaining in the United States, France, Belgium, and Italy, respectively?

Dr. MACNAMARA: There is nothing in the United States, France, or Belgium comparable to the system of compulsory
State insurance against unemployment which has been established in this country. I will, if I may, circulate with the OFFICIAL REPORT information with regard to the rates of benefit obtainable at the present time under the compulsory State insurance scheme in Italy.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May we take it in consonance with the right hon. Gentleman's answer that we are the most generous of the Great Powers on the question of unemployed?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have said that there is nothing comparable in the case of the States named in the question. My hon. Friend will draw his own conclusion.
Following is the information promised:—
Under the provisions of the Italian Unemployment Insurance System, as laid down in the Decree of 19th October, 1919, the weekly benefit is fixed as follows, varying according to the wage-scale of the contributor:
Earnings and Unemployment Benefit.

1. Not exceeding 24 lire—7.50 lire.
2. Above 24, but not exceeding 48 lire— 15.00 lire.
3. Above 48 lire—22.50 lire.

In no case may the benefit exceed one-half of the rate of earnings.
Strictly speaking, no comparison whatever is admissible with any foreign scheme except the above. As regards a comparison between the Italian scheme and that in force in this country the figures given below would, however, involve no very serious error. The benefit shown as payable in this country is that proposed under the new Bill:
(1) Wages of a skilled male operative (engineering) per full week are:
United Kingdom (about), 100s.
Italy (about), 160 lire.
(2) Weekly benefit.
United Kingdom, 20s.
Italy, 22½ lire.
(3) Proportion of Benefit to Wages.
United Kingdom, 20 per cent.
Italy, 14 per cent.
In view of the differing purchasing power of the currencies of the two countries a direct comparison between the commodity value of the benefit paid in one country and the other cannot properly be drawn.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

BUILDING TRADE (DILUTION).

Mr. WATERSON: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour, seeing that the Government are arranging for dilution in the building trade, if he is prepared to draft legislation to prevent unemployment in such industry; and, if not, what hopes has he that the men employed as dilutees will be able to secure a livelihood in the future?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Unemployment in the building industry at the present moment is of very small proportions, apart from those occupations which are either particularly liable to seasonal fluctuations in demand or have been specially affected by the shortage of craftsmen in the key trades of the industry. There appears to be no need for special legislation to be adopted for the building industry.

Mr. WATERSON: Am I to understand that these men, who have been put into the industry and trained somewhat at the expense of the taxpayers, will probably, in the course of two years' time, find themselves on the streets without any employment at all?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend is not to understand that at all, and he will understand this rather remarkable fact that, of all the crafts I know of, there are only two, even in the present grave state of industrial depression, where the number of vacancies offered is smaller than the number of men offered. Those two are the bricklayers and the plasterers.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some thousands of men have been trained at the Government expense in the boot and shoe industry, and, having been trained, are now on the streets; and is he expecting a similar result from placing these men in the building industry?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I believe that the men whom the boot and shoe industry has very generously allowed us to train are suffering from the heavy weather which industry is at the present time experiencing, though not more than other classes—indeed, less, if anything, I should think, from the figures. What
that has to do with the building industry, however, I do not know.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to ascertain from the ex-service men now out of employment the number desiring to serve as apprentices in the building trade?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a question which ought to be put down.

CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT (EMPLOYES).

Mr. SWAN: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed in the co-operative movement in Great Britain at the Armistice, and the number employed now?

Dr. MACNAMARA: According to the returns of the Co-operative Union, the number of persons employed in the co-operative movement at the end of 1918 was 164,383. The corresponding figures for the end of 1919, the latest date for which figures are available, was 187,535. It is known, however, that the number has considerably increased since the end of 1919.

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYES.

Mr. SWAN: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed by municipal authorities at the Armistice, and the number at present?

Dr. MACNAMARA: According to the returns to the Ministry of Labour, the total number of persons employed in municipal gas, water, electricity, trams, and general services was 575,000 at November, 1920, as compared with 407,000 at November, 1918.

Major NALL: Does not this increase account to a marked extent for the great rise in rates?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

DESTRUCTION OF CREAMERIES (UNEMPLOYMENT).

Mr. SWAN: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the number of
persons in Ireland who are thrown out of work duo to the destruction of co-operative creameries and dairies?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am unable to state the number of persons thrown out of work by the destruction of co-operative creameries and dairies.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the destruction of these creameries £500,000 worth of trade has been lost, with consequent unemployment?

GUERILLA FORCES.

Sir F. HALL: 58.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the reproduction in a French journal of a translation of an article in the "Daily News" by a Mr. Masterman, in which it is stated that the Irish guerilla forces have captured many hundreds of policemen and soldiers and have treated them with uniform kindness and courtesy and after a time released them, while the British Government have immediately hanged all the Sinn Feiners whom they have captured; if he will state the number of policemen and soldiers murdered by the Irish Republican Forces in 1919 and 1920, and the number of captured Irish hanged during the same period; and if the Government will take steps to secure publicity in France of the real facts of the question to counteract the inaccuracies that are now being circulated there through the instrumentality of certain political organisations in this country?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has already called the attention of the House to the article referred to, and he made a subsequent statement to the House which will be within the recollection of hon. Members.

HON. MEMBERS: An apology!

Mr. HENRY: Certainly, an apology. I do not want to minimise the apology he made. During the years 1919 and 1920 236 soldiers and police were murdered in Ireland. During the same period one man who was caught red-handed in a murderous attack on troops drawing bread from a bakery during which three soldiers were murdered was tried and executed.
The suggestion contained in the last part of the question is receiving most careful attention.

Sir F. HALL: Will it not only receive careful attention, but will it be acted upon, in order that the same publicity may be given in the French papers to the statement now made by the right hon. Gentleman as was given to the article which appeared in the French papers under the signature of a Mr. Masterman?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the French newspapers contain a good deal more news about Ireland, and truer news, than the English newspapers?

Sir D. MACLEAN: In the right hon. Gentleman's statement to-day he referred to a statement made by the Chief Secretary in which he expressed to Mr. Masterman on the 23rd of last month his profound regret for having made the statement referred to.

Mr. MOLES: For having used his name.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who was responsible for this article?

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this information shall be published in the French newspapers?

Mr. HENRY: We will do all in our power to diffuse truth, not only in this country, but in foreign countries.

Sir F. HALL: And in this House.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, EAST HAM.

Mr. W. THORNE: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a number of adult workers reside at Barking who have to attend at the East Ham Employment Exchange to sign on and that at times the adults in question have to remain there some hours before they can sign on; that additional huts are about to be fixed up at the back of the existing premises in East Ham; and that there is a Juvenile Exchange at Barking; whether some arrangements will be made so that the adults can sign on at the Employment Exchange at Barking so as to relieve the pressure at East Ham; and if he will take action in the matter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Barking residents have two Exchanges available for them, namely, those at East Ham and Ilford.
The Juvenile Exchange at Barking is situated in the premises of the local authority and cannot be made available for adult applicants. Some waiting is inevitable at present at the East Ham Exchange owing to the large numbers to be dealt with and the limited accommodation, but every effort is being made to expedite the provision of additional accommodation. I am advised that the congestion mainly occurs in the mornings owing to the attendance of applicants before the Exchange is opened. Before the close of the year I issued instructions that every endeavour in the way of acquiring additional premises and temporary staff must be made in thickly-populated areas, so that everything possible might be done to avoid delays.

Mr. W. THORNE: Could not some provision be made so that men and women who are living at Barking would be allowed to register at the Exchange at Barking instead of having to walk 1½ miles in one case and 2 miles in the other?

Dr. MACNAMARA: East Ham Exchange is 1½ miles. That is a hardship, but I have great difficulty in getting other premises. We are doing all we can to pay these men as expeditiously and as smoothly as possible and with as little delay and inconvenience as possible.

Mr. THORNE: Is not the Juvenile Exchange at Barking for people who reside at Barking?

Mr. MACNAMARA: That belongs to the local authority. I put it to those who help me this morning whether we could not ask for that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

MIGRATION OF SECURITIES (GERMANY).

Mr. WISE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Reparation Commission or any other body have stopped the migration of securities from Germany?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The export of capital from Germany is prohibited by various laws of the German Government, the chief of which is the Law of 26th June, 1918. I understand that the object of these laws is to prevent the evasion of taxes.

REPARATION (GERMANY).

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 51.
asked the Prime Minister the total amount
received by Great Britain in money and goods from Germany up to date; what is the number of British troops in the Army of Occupation and the cost of the same; whether the cost is included in the reparation proposals or whether it is proposed to levy a separate and distinct charge to cover this; and will he state the amount of taxation per head of the population in Germany, France, Italy, and Great Britain?

Mr. BONAR LAW: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to a reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question by the hon. Member for Stoke Newington on the 28th February. The total number of British troops in the Army of Occupation on the 1st February last was 12,909, all ranks, costing approximately £219,200 per month. The costs of the Armies of Occupation are the first charge on the amounts recovered from Germany, but are payable in addition to the sum payable by her for reparations. With regard to the last part of the question, the following estimate has been made of the total tax revenue per head in the countries named:


Germany
…
599
Marks.


France
…
390
Francs.


Italy
…
200
Lire.


United Kingdom
…
£22.

Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the sterling value of those figures on the present rates of exchange?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on Paper.

INDEMNITY.

Mr. W. SHAW: 57.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government have in their possession any information which would indicate the amount of indemnity which the Germans hoped to extract from this country and the method they intended to use to secure payment?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): His Majesty's Government are not in possession of any official information of the kind referred to in the question.

MANDATES.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 59.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether consideration of the Mesopotamian Mandate has
been delayed by the League of Nations at the request of the American Government; and, if so, whether he will publish the correspondence on the subject?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The decision of the Council of the League to postpone the consideration of the Mandates, including that of Mesopotamia, till its next meeting was taken independently of any request from the American Government, and was concurred in by the British representative. The decision regarding the publication of correspondence between the American Government and the Council rests with the latter.

Lord R. CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether consideration of the Palestine Mandate has also been postponed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand so.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: And the East African Mandate?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, approximately, when the next meeting will be held?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It will be in two or three months, but I do not know the exact date.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 60.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Mandates after agreement between the Government and the League of Nations will be submitted to this House in the form of Bills, or in what manner provision will be made to enable the House to amend them in regard to financial or other details?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that it is premature to answer this question until the Mandates have been dealt with by the League of Nations.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the Government take into consideration the precedent of the action of the Australian Parliament with regard to New Guinea, which is embodied in the New Guinea Act, recently passed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that as the Mandate will not come to this House until after it has been accepted
we shall, in some way or other, retain control of the expenditure that is necessary under the Mandate?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that I can say more than I have said in the answer to previous questions. It is obvious that the final control must rest with the House of Commons.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want the right hon. Gentleman to go a bit further, and say that it is not a mere question of putting the Mandate before us as a whole and accepting it or rejecting it. We may want the Mandate with amendments.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not see how that could be done. What would happen would be this: Assuming that the Mandate is presented as a Treaty would be presented, if the House of Commons does not like it and says "we would prefer it in this form," the Government of the day would then re-present it in the form in which the House of Commons would like it.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the Australian Government and Parliament did actually amend the forced labour clause of the Mandate with respect to New Guinea, and amended it in a progressive direction?

Mr. BONAR LAW: From what I have said it is obvious that this House would have precisely the same powers.

SWITZERLAND (PASSAGE OF TROOPS).

Sir J. D. REES: I had a private notice question addressed to the Leader of the House which was postponed from yesterday, whether he will inform the House what are the so-called international troops of the League of Nations to which Switzerland has just refused a passage through the Republic's territories to Vilna on the ground that more troops may have to be sent to protect the original troops which may find themselves engaged in warfare, in which Switzerland may become involved; whether such a danger is peculiar—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This question is too involved. I have not seen it. It appears to me that it is a question which should be put on the Paper.

Sir J. D. REES: This question was seen by Mr. Speaker and was called yesterday and at the request of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the House it was postponed until to-day. Therefore unless you rule that it is out of order I will finish the question.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not know that it was intended to ask it to-day. No doubt what the hon. Member says is correct.

Sir J. D. REES: The remainder of this question was, "Whether such danger is peculiar to Switzerland or common to other nations subscribing to this League of Nations?"

Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject is at present under consideration by the Council of the League of Nations and I am not, therefore, in a position to reply to my hon. Friend's question.

Sir J. D. REES: With reference to the information I have received, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state what are the so-called international troops of the League of Nations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The so-called international troops of the League of Nations are troops derived from a variety of nations.

EGYPT (MILKER EEPORT).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 48.
Risked the Prime Minister whether the Milner Report is to be discussed this Session; and, if so, whether he can give a date for the discussion?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Mansfield.

"LABOUR GAZETTE."

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to save a large amount of expenditure by sending copies of the "Labour Gazette" out in thin wrappers instead of in the large stout envelopes, nearly two feet long and over a foot wide, at present being used?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Of that part of the distribution of the "Labour Gazette" with which the Ministry of Labour is concerned, amounting to some 10,000 copies monthly, about 9,900 copies are issued in thin wrappers and less than 100 in envelopes. The size of the envelopes generally used in these cases is much below that suggested by my hon. Friend. If, however, he will supply me with particulars of a recent case in which an envelope of that size has been used, I will have further inquiries made.

Major NALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of issuing the really essential information contained in this "Gazette" through the ordinary press channels and so save what is a very expensive and unnecessary publication?

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the vast importance of the question raised by the hon. Member and the distinguished position he fills in the economic world, will the right hon. Gentleman ask him for suggestions by which the money of the State can be saved?

COFFEE BEANS, MIDDLESBROUGH.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister which Government Department is responsible for the 100 tons of coffee beans, part of a prize cargo, which have been lying in various stores in Middlesbrough since 1916; is he aware that about 47 tons of this coffee has been unloaded, stored, and reloaded no less than three times, at first being stored at Middlesbrough North Eastern Railway Dock, then transferred to Tyne Tees Wharf, and recently moved to Dent's Wharf; and if he will state the total costs incurred over this portion of the parcel from 1916 to date?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir G. Hewart): I have been asked to answer this question. I am informed that the Admiralty-Marshal, who is under the direction of the Prize Court, has the custody of the coffee referred to. The 47 tons are the remaining balance of coffee cargoes condemned as Prize and are of a quality suitable only for export, for which there has recently been no market. The answer to the third part of the question is £316 0s. 5d.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that this is cleared as soon as possible so as to avoid further loss?

Sir G. HEWART: I fear I am not able to take any steps, but I am sure all possible steps have been taken and will be taken.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PURCHASE OF PREMISES).

Major NALL: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the building of new Employment Exchanges was deferred in deference to Parliamentary opposition to the expenditure, and that since that date it has been the practice of other Departments to purchase premises before the money for the same has been voted; and whether the Government will stop this unconstitutional practice?

Mr. BALDWIN: I presume the hon. and gallant Member has in mind the acquisition of the premises at Hollinwood for the Stationery Office? The premises were erected as an aircraft factory by the American Government in 1917, it is understood, at a cost of £477,000. As they were eminently suitable for meeting urgent requirements of the Stationery Office in the Manchester district, a lease of them was taken in April, 1920, for a period of eighteen months at a rent of £12,000 per annum, His Majesty's Government having an option to purchase within that period at £185,000. In connection with a general settlement of outstanding claims between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government in November last, under which a net cash payment of nearly £3,000,000 was made to this country, the Disposals Board agreed to take over this property from the United States of America with the intention of selling it to the Stationery Office. Parliamentary authority for the purchase by the Stationery Office has been sought at the earliest practicable opportunity in the Supply Estimate recently passed in Committee of Supply. It is not the case, therefore, that the Office of Works purchased in advance of Parliamentary authority.

Major NALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no direct reference in this question to the premises at Hollin-
wood; and that the question directly raises the issue of Parliamentary control of expenditure; and will he please answer the question on the Paper?

Mr. WADDINGTON: Is it correct that the Oldham Chamber of Commerce, or an official connected with it, had these premises at Hollinwood offered to them for £40,000 while the Government has bought them for £180,000?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have no knowledge of the point just raised by the hon. Member. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend (Major Nail) I must apologise to him because I have not answered the question as he expected. If he will be good enough to put it down again I will try to do so; but as this case was the only one within my knowledge that had recently been before the House, I thought he referred to that and I felt that it was only courteous to him to give full details.

Major NALL: Is it not a fact that in the Supplementary Estimate which, included the Hollinwood premises several other buildings were included, and is not this question relevant to those cases as well as the Hollinwood case?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better repeat his question. The Government reply does not seem to be very relevant to the question now.

JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT SCHEMES.

Mr. MILLS: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the interests of economy, he will consider the desirability of unifying the administration of juvenile employment schemes under either the Ministry of Labour or the Board of Education?

Mr. BONAR LAW: This matter is now under consideration, and I hope that steps may be taken on the lines suggested in the question.

CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Major C. LOWTHER: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Liquor Control Board recently acquired a large house in Carlisle for the purpose of
converting it into licensed premises; whether the Board intend spending £10,000 on new machinery at Carlisle Brewery; and whether he will intimate to whomever may be responsible the desirability of the Liquor Control Board suspending their operations in Carlisle and district pending the introduction of a Government Licensing Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first parts of the question is in the affirmative, except that the precise amount of expenditure required to carry out certain improvements at the Brewery, necessary for efficient and economical working, has not yet been determined; the answer to the third part is in the negative.

Major LOWTHER: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that he will advise that no unnecessary or great expenditure should be incurred pending the introduction of the Government Licensing Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is quite reasonable, and instructions to that effect have already been given, but to suspend it, as suggested by my hon. Friend, would have the effect for the time of Carlisle going dry.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the total amount borrowed for these particular premises in Carlisle, the total amount of expenditure, and whether it is a fact that there is a credit balance due?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I answered that question and gave particulars in a written answer, I think, last week.

Major LOWTHER: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether Sir Edgar Sanders has resigned his position as general manager of the Liquor Control Board's undertakings in Carlisle and district; and, if so, for what reason?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir. Sir Edgar Sanders has resigned his position with the Board in order to take up a business appointment, and the Board have conveyed to him their regret at the loss of his services and their appreciation of his work in Carlisle.

Major LOWTHER: Is it a fact that the Board is now without chairman and general manager, and can the right hon.
Gentleman say who is the direct head of the Board in the absence of the chairman and the general manager?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think there is a chairman, and the general manager will be appointed immediately.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not a fact that the chairman is an official, an assistant secretary, in the Home Office?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think so.

Sir H. CRAIK: Should the chairman of such a Board, who represents the public, have an official connection with a Government Department?

FARMING INDUSTRY.

Mr. FORREST: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will institute an inquiry, Departmental or otherwise, into the effect on farming generally produced by the operation, on the one hand, of the National Wages Board and, on the other, by the falling prices, with the object, in particular, of averting the threatened agricultural depression and ensuring smoother working relations between those connected with the land?

Colonel Sir R. SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply to this question. It is not considered that any useful purpose would be served by an inquiry of the kind suggested in my hon. Friend's question. I would remind him that two inquiries into agricultural matters have been held quite recently, namely, by Lord Selborne's Reconstruction Committee and by the Royal Commission on Agriculture in 1919, and that as a result of their recommendations the Agriculture Act was passed last Session with the object, inter alia, of providing security against loss in the event of a serious fall in the prices of wheat and oats. The present position is being closely watched by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (COM- MITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Mr. FORREST: 61.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Committee is to be appointed to investigate the charges made in connection with working papers
of the Ministry of Munitions; whether the personnel has yet been selected; what will be the terms of reference; and whether the proceedings will be open to the public?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If my hon. Friend will ask this question again on Monday I hope to be able to give full particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BUILDING GUILDS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 64.
asked the Minister of Health how the cost and workmanship of houses erected by building guilds compare with the cost and workmanship of similar houses erected by ordinary contractors for private profit?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): The housing contracts at present being carried out by the building guilds have not advanced very far, and completed costs are not available. I am informed that the standard of work so far carried out is satisfactory.

BUILDING MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT.

Mr. HUGH MORRISON: 65.
asked how many officials are employed in the Department of the Director of Building Materials and Supplies, and what is the monthly cost; and whether, with a view to accelerating the housing schemes, steps will be taken to abolish it without delay?

Captain TUDOR-REES: 86.
asked the Minister of Health the size of the staff of the Director of Building Material Supplies and the annual cost of that Department; whether he is aware that that Department is a source of irritation to those engaged in the building trade; and whether, since it is a hindrance and checks progress in the erection of houses, he will take steps to bring it to an end?

Dr. ADDISON: I may refer the hon. Members to the replies I gave last week to similar questions addressed to me by the hon. Members for Lincoln and the Isle of Ely, of which I am sending them copies.

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: 68
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether houses commenced by local authorities under approved schemes before the 31st July, 1922, but not completed by that date will nevertheless qualify for the Government subsidy;
(2) whether the period within which housing schemes must be completed by local authorities in order to qualify for the Government subsidy, which period under the Regulations will terminate on the 31st July, 1922, will be extended beyond that date?

Dr. ADDISON: I can assure the hon. Member that a local authority will not be prejudiced as regards financial assistance in respect of commitments entered into with the approval of the Ministry of Health which the local authorities, by reason of circumstances outside their control, are unable to carry out within the prescribed period.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does that apply to houses for which the local authority has made a contract, which houses have not yet been commenced by the date when the subsidy will expire?

Dr. ADDISON: We are considering the precise form of procedure that would be applicable, and I would ask my hon. Friend to put down another question, when I hope to be able to give a more specific reply.

PARLIAMENTARY REGISTERS.

Colonel BURN: 66.
asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the advisability, on the ground of economy, of having only one Parliamentary register yearly instead of two?

Mr. PERCY: 81.
asked the Minister of Health if he can state approximately the annual cost of preparing the registers under the Representation of the People Act, 1918; and whether it would effect a great economy and answer all reasonable purposes if the registers were published once annually?

Dr. ADDISON: The present annual cost of preparing the two half yearly registers in Great Britain is estimated at about £1,200,000. The question of having one register yearly instead of two is under consideration by the Government.

Colonel Sir ALAN SYKES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what would be the actual saving?

Dr. ADDISON: I believe that the actual saving would be about £320,000.

Sir C. YATE: When can the right hon. Gentleman give us a definite reply?

Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question in a week's time?

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (RECORD CARDS).

Mr. FORREST: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is still receiving any protests from panel doctors as to the work entailed by filling up the new forms of cards; and, seeing that the time so employed diminishes the amount of attention which can be given to individual patients, will he inquire into the whole matter to see how the system is working?

Dr. ADDISON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers to the questions which I gave yesterday on the subject of the medical record cards to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight. I cannot accept the view that the keeping of records must detract from the time available for giving adequate medical treatment. In the majority of insurance practices the practitioner is responsible for less than one-fourth of the number of insured patients for which, in the view of the doctors' own representatives, an ordinary practitioner can safely assume responsibility. I may say that the number of objections to the record cards from medical men and others concerned in working the system is insignificant. I may say that out of some 150. Panel Committees representing some 12,000 medical men on the panel, I have only received protests from nine, and those mostly on points of detail, although every effort has been made to stir up discontent in this matter by certain persons.

BILL PRESENTED.

DOCKING OF HORSES BILL,

"'to prohibit the docking of Horses," presented by Colonel BURN; supported by Sir John Butcher, Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck, Commander Bellairs, Sir 
William Bull, and Mr. Joseph Green; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Unemployment Insurance Act (1920) Amendment Bill, with Amendments.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

REPORT. [1ST MARCH.]

AIR ESTIMATES, 1921–22.

Resolutions reported,
1. "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 30,880, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922!
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,794,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Air Force at Home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922.

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to enter into a discussion on the number of airmen voted under this Vote, especially in view of the absence of the Secretary of State for Air, but I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can reply to one or two points which I raised yesterday in our rather fore-shortened discussion. The discussion was cut short, as the House will remember, by a Motion for the Adjournment at 8.15, and I was purposely very brief in putting my points. The Secretary of State for Air no doubt had no wish to be discourteous in not replying to them, but as the Parliamentary Secretary was present and probably consulted on the situation with the Secretary of State for Air, I would like to know whether he will reply very briefly to the following points which are, I believe, of first-rate importance.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): May I make an appeal to the hon. and gallant Member? I stated yesterday that as soon as possible after the return of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) I would arrange to give a day for the discussion of this Vote. I am sure it will be more useful to have a discussion later than to attempt it now.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: In any case the subject is quite out of order on the Report of this Vote, on which we are confined strictly to the subject-matter of the Vote, namely, the number of all ranks. A general Debate would not be in order on this occasion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very much obliged. I had no intention of going outside the bargain, but I thought I should be in order, without raising any new points, to ask for an answer on the two particular matters to which I wish to refer. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I do not propose to press my point. In any ease I had no intention of raising new ground.

Question put, and agreed to.

Second Resolution agreed to.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1920–21.

CLASS I.

RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £328,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for rates and contributions in lieu of rates, etc., in respect of Government property, and for rates on houses occupied by representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the salaries and expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a contribution towards the expenses of the London Fire Brigade.

4.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £28,000.
This Estimate is for a very considerable sum. It is caused by the large additions to the rates which have taken place since the beginning of the financial year. I know it is not in order to go outside the limit of this Vote, but with permission I will direct the attention of the Committee to a statement just issued by the Ministry of Health, giving particulars for each borough and urban district in England and Wales and showing the amount of the local rates for 100 typical rural parishes. I will give the information, and perhaps it will induce hon. Members to
peruse the document. It shows that the rates have increased by £78,000,000. For 1918–14 rates which reached a total of £71,000,000 are for the current year no less than £149,000,000. Those figures show the devastating increases which are falling upon the whole of the areas of England, Wales, and Scotland. They are, of course, reflected in the Vote we are discussing. The Committee will observe that the original Estimate was £1,700,000. The revised Estimate is no less than £2,048,000, and the additional sum required is £348,000. That raises a most important point. Nine times out of ten the Committee must look, not at the net sum asked for, but at the gross sum, because the net sum is arrived at by bringing in what are called appropriations-in-aid, which nine times out of ten are the merest book-keeping, and simply conceal—I do not suggest improperly—the real addition to the national expenditure which a Supplementary Estimate produces. I would direct the attention of the Committee to Item C, which says that the increase has been caused by the rise in the poundage of rates and by the continuance of war occupations, mainly War Department, £77,000. I understand that one must not range too widely over that point, but it is a perfectly relevant point for the Committee to discuss. If the Government had cleared out of many of these buildings a year ago, obviously they would not have had to come to the Committee to-day for so large an increase on the original Estimate. We are entitled to ask, and I do ask my right hon. Friend, if there is any hope of any reduction in the premises occupied by the Government and their various Departments. Here is a clear instance of £77,000 added to the rates alone owing to the occupation of premises, many of which certainly ought to have been vacated months ago, if not eighteen months ago. Another Report has been recently issued showing that up to the end of December or November the net decrease was only 399 out of 385,000 employés, and while there has been that decrease among the temporary employés there has been an increase in the permanent staff. That is the trouble with which the Committee are faced, and I simply raise the matter briefly in that fashion and move the reduction of the Vote.

Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman opposite, in moving the reduction of the Vote, alluded to a certain valuable document. Am I right in thinking that this valuable document emanated from the Ministry of Health?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Yes.

Sir F. BANBURY: Did the right hon. Gentleman allude to it ironically as being the only valuable document that has emanated from that Ministry during the last two years, or does he really think that it is an essential document? If he does think so, would he give me the reference?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Command Paper 1155.

Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has quite correctly pointed out the serious result of the very great increase in rates during the last few years. I take this opportunity to remind Members of the Committee that there is down for this evening a Bill to increase coroners' salaries by 50 per cent. Now that I have warned hon. Members, I hope that those who agree with me that we do not want to increase the rates will take the opportunity of seeing that that Hill does not go any further. It will not if I can help it. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to the fact that £77,000 of this Supplementary Vote has been caused by the continuance of war occupation. I want very seriously to ask my right hon. Friend (Mr. Baldwin) how the Treasury can have allowed this occupation to go on. Am I not right in saying that our Army grows smaller and smaller every year? If the private soldier is reduced every year, what on earth do we want all these extra buildings for? When the Army was large it was probably necessary that we should have all these extra buildings, but now the Army has been reduced, I think wrongly. It is the only thing in regard to which members, of the Labour party sometimes jibe at me for being a little extravagant. I am extravagant with regard to the private soldier, but I am not extravagant with regard to the permanent officials who live in permanent buildings, and who, if war came about, would be of no use whatever. I see a prominent soldier (General Sir C. Townshend) sitting opposite, and he perhaps will support me when I say that it is no use having these permanent build-
ings for these permanent officials, who certainly do not do any good. I should very much like to know why the Treasury has not insisted upon these premises being given up. Nominally, the War has been over for a long time, and the Treasury ought to have insisted on the War Office giving up these buildings.
Appropriations-in-Aid.—Additional repayment by War Office in respect of increased contributions for ordnance factory is £20,000.
What does that mean? Does it mean that there is some other Vote in which £20,000 is charged the Ordnance factories and that the Ordnance factories pay back to the War Office? I do not say that is the solution. I cannot make out what is the solution, but I should like to know how it is that this increased contribution comes from the Ordnance factories and what is its form. Is it rates, or what is it? How does it come to be taken as an Appropriation-in-Aid for rates? Item C gives the rates and contributions in lieu of rates, etc., in England. That is a rather large order. There is nothing to show how it is distributed, how much is owing to the Ministry of Munitions, how much to the War Office, or how much to the Foreign Office. It would have been better if there had been a footnote dividing it up instead of putting down one lump sum, £1,700,000 rates and contributions in lieu of rates, etc., in England. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to answer those questions satisfactorily.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I rise to support what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). Apparently, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, the majority of this £77,000 is War Office expenditure upon rates. That being so, it is rather a pity that we have not a representative of the War Office present to answer these various points. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is one of the hardest working men in the House, and probably one of the most economical, and I am quite sure that it would not be fair to keep on asking him questions about the War Office. It is not acting quite respectfully to the House when we have a Vote in relation to which it says specifically that the major portion is the War Department that we should not have a repre-
sentative of the War Office to explain the Vote. Therefore I suggest that my right hon. Friend should send one of his private secretaries to get the representative of the War Office to come and deal with the Vote. I have never been able to understand, seeing that the Armistice was signed over two years ago, why we require such an enormous quantity of War Office officials. Of course the amount we are now asked to spend in rates is entirely owing to these enormous quantities of War Office officials who live in these various buildings. Therefore I take it that I am entirely in order in dealing with this point. If it were not for the fact that these buildings are occupied by War Office officials we should not be called upon to-day for this very large sum of £77,000 for rates.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for putting the matter to me as a point of Order. The only question in order is whether this Supplementary sum is required for rates. It would not be in order to discuss and debate the various Departments and their staffs and the buildings they occupy.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: We are entitled to try to ascertain exactly which Departments are concerned in this matter. We are told it is mainly the War Department, and I think we are entitled to extract from the Government what proportion of this £348,000 is on account of the various Departments.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I allowed the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) to put that point. Anything that helps Members of the Committee to obtain information with regard to items in the Vote would be in order, and I will give every facility to Members to obtain such information.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will keep within your ruling. As the War Department are the chief offenders in this respect, I brought the matter forward. I daresay hon. Members are aware that since the War there are over 7,000 more War Office officials than there were before the War. Just before the War began there were 1,600.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that is rather going into the details of
administration of the War Office. The hon. Member will see where that would lead to. If I allowed that, hon. Members might raise very wide subjects of a similar kind.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will not pursue that. I take it that rates are not payable on the huts in St. James Park. Would they be payable on the hutments on the Horse Guards Parade? I do not quite understand why the War Office should be specially guilty in this respect if it is not the case that these rates are paid, because the other day, in answer to a question, the First Commissioner of Works told us that 30,000 feet of hutments had been evacuated in St. James Park, and when he was asked whether the huts were going to be pulled down, he replied, "No; the whole of the vacated huts will be used by War Office officials." I should like to know definitely whether rates are payable on these St. James Park huts.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): No, they are not.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Then I am rather surprised that these War Office rates have gone up to such an extent, and if it is the case that rates are not payable on these huts, surely if we have got to have these officials, it is a pity to pull down any huts. Why pull down the huts on the Horse Guards Parade?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I can foresee an interesting discussion on the huts in the Park, and that would be out of order.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Then I am afraid I shall not be able to go on.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, not on that point.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it in order to discuss the methods by which this sum appears on the Estimates?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I do not think so. This is a definite account for rates, and the question is as to whether the Committee agree that the Department should pay these rates, and whether they are satisfied that the Supplementary Estimate and the increased sum that is asked for is a proper sum to be asked for for rates. If the Committee approve the
rates being paid, they are paid, and it is the rates only that can be discussed, and not the policy which leads to the expenditure of money on the rates.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Is it not in order to discuss the question, since a large part of this increase is for the continuance of war occupations, without going into details? As long as we keep on to general grounds, I understand you will allow the discussion to proceed?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I desire to allow as much latitude as possible, but the last time I rose to call the attention of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson) to the point he was referring to was on the question of huts in the park. It is obvious to me that if I allowed that to continue other Members would discuss the desirability or otherwise of retaining the huts in the park. I shall not intervene unless I feel obliged to do so, but I must watch that the Debate is kept within proper limits.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I put this point of Order? We are asked to vote £348,000, and an Amendment has been moved to reduce that to £320,000. Is it not a good argument to say that if these huts in St. James' Park on which rates are not payable had been used, it would not have been necessary to come for this supplementary sum, and that therefore it is owing to the negligence of the Government in not taking advantage of these huts being free from rates that that part of this sum is required? I think an argument like that would be in order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No. The question of what is in order must be left to the Chair.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not intend to go on with the remarks I was making, but may I ask your ruling on this point? Is the only thing we can discuss as to whether the actual rates on these buildings were proper rates to pay? Are we not allowed to discuss the administration of the Government in remaining in these buildings instead of going elsewhere?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the discussion must be confined to the point whether these rates are to be paid or not. If I allowed the discussion to
be on the class of buildings, it would be out of order, and would not be strictly within this Vote. There are other occasions for dealing with the occupation of buildings in the park and elsewhere, but the present is only an occasion for deciding whether this sum shall be granted for rates, and I must ask hon. Members to keep strictly to the question of rates.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I wish to draw attention not so much to the one-fifth of this sum, but to the four-fifths, namely, the £271,000 necessitated by the rise in the poundage of rates. We are in this difficult position, that if we reject this Supplementary Estimate it puts up the rates which everybody else has to pay, because local authorities have to get their money. What to my mind is wrong about the Estimate is that the Government ought to have foreseen, and could have foreseen, that their administration would inevitably put up the rates and the poundage of the rates by the enormous sums that it has during the last few months, and that their coming here for these supplementary sums is the result of a rise in rates which was inevitable considering the number of commitments they were forcing on the local authorities. We are asked to give this enormous sum of money in support of the expenditure of local authorities for Government buildings, and we are not told anything to show which of the Departments is mainly responsible for the £271,000 increase. The Government could undoubtedly have done without so large a sum had they not occupied not only these buildings in London alone, but so many valuable, highly-rated premises in all the provincial towns of the country. Supposing there is no employment exchange in a town, the Labour Minister comes down and takes the most expensive office promises that he can in the whole town, and so it is all over the country.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will see that that is a matter for the Office of Works. The Committee discussed the Supplementary Estimates of the Office of Works last Friday, and they cannot have another Debate to-day upon the same Department.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I was a little afraid that I was out of order, but I hoped I had been sufficiently skilful to get round that fence. I see a great many
fences in discussing this Vote. It is very difficult even to ascertain how it comes about exactly that we are asked to vote this additional money. It is not in order to discuss the various causes which have led to the rise in rates, to discuss whether the Government could have avoided having to ask for this money by taking cheaper buildings, or to discuss the question of giving up the buildings, and so we are really limited to trying to find out exactly what are the Departments which are causing this additional expenditure to the State, and that is what we are not told. It is one of the things which we ought always to be told in a Supplementary Estimate. Whenever a Supplementary Estimate comes before this House, these footnotes should not be so drafted as to prevent the House ascertaining what is going on. They are very cleverly drafted, so as to avoid discussion and keep the House in the dark, instead of being footnotes which would clearly show to us whether it is the Ministry of Health, or the War Office, or the Admiralty, or what Ministry it is that really has caused those increased charges. We can never ascertain that in these block Votes. We are never going to get hold of the control of Estimates in this House until we have the promised Estimates Committee, and until that Committee can point out to the House exactly the cause of the expenditure, and, above all, can present the Estimates to the House in such a form as to enable the House to discuss thorn. We are confined by the narrowest Rules of Order in Committee of Supply on Supplementary Estimates, and the only way in which we can really got control is by getting a Committee which will sweep away all these official explanations and give us the real explanation, the itemised account, of large sums like this £348,000, and tell us exactly who is responsible.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have listened to my hon. and gallant Friend's gallant efforts to got some discussion on this difficult question, and I want to ask whether it would not be in order to move to report Progress until such time as the Government could give us information to enable us to have a proper discussion on this Vote. I should not think of contesting your ruling, but the Estimates as drawn make it impossible to have a
proper Debate. We are asked to pass £348,000 for extra rates, and we do not know where they come from or what Ministry is responsible. They may be perfectly innocent increases of rates, or they may be due to causes over which the Government has no control, or they may be increases for which some Department of the Government is really responsible. I should like to ask the Deputy-Chairman whether it would be in order—and if so I propose to do so, but I shall, of course, obey his ruling—to move to report progress and ask leave not to sit again until such time as the Government amend the Estimates in such a form as to lead to a Debate?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out there is another Vote on which to discuss policy. The only question now before the Committee is whether rates should be paid on these properties, not whether the Government should continue to occupy these premises. That question can be raised on other Votes which will come before the Committee some other time. In regard to the question raised by the hon. Baronet it seems to me fairly clear in this Vote £271,000 is due to the rise in the poundage on rates. That is quite clear, and that £77,000 is due to the continuation of war occupation. I do not think I should be performing my duty if I accepted a motion to report progress.

Lord R CECIL: I should like to put this point to you, Sir. As I understand it, £77,000 is to pay the additional cost of some additional buildings occupied by the Government which were not foreseen in the original Estimates. That must be so, or else there will not be an increase apart from the rise in poundage. We are told that this is due to the continuation of war occupation, mainly concerning War Departments. But what decides the War Departments? We are given information that the Government evidently think it is important that we should know that the sum paid is caused by the War Departments, but they do not think it important that we should know what Departments are concerned in the increase, since the original Estimate was passed, that has caused this rise in the rates. I venture to submit respectfully to you, Sir, that if we are really to examine these Estimates carefully we must know what Departments have caused this increased expenditure, so that we may know
which Minister is responsible for this particular increase, apart altogether from the question of which building it is. I submit that we are entitled to that information, and that we should have had it before the Committee was asked to discuss this question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: What information is given to the Committee by the Minister in charge is a matter for the Minister and not for me, but I rule that this is not the time for discussing policy, nor is it the time to discuss the question whether these premises should be occupied or not. That matter is not now under discussion. The assumption is that these premises have been occupied, and what the Committee is asked for is whether they will authorise the payment of a supplementary sum for rates. That is the only question before the Committee at the present time, and if hon. Members object there is an Amendment now before the Committee to reduce that sum, and they can vote for that reduction if they are not satisfied. I think that the discussion should proceed on the lines I have stated.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: When I was interrupted on a point of Order, I was in possession of the House. I do not think it is right to vote for a diminution of the sum when we do not know all the facts. The Government may be perfectly right in this matter or they may be wrong, I do not know. I do not want to vote for the reduction of £100 in rates. I may be doing an injustice to the Department concerned, or to some authority whose rates are to be cut out. It is not until we know what Departments are concerned that we shall be able adequately to discuss the matter. Of course, I shall be guided by your ruling, Sir, but I venture with great respect as a protest to move my Motion to report progress, and to ask leave to sit again because these Estimates do not give us sufficient information to enable the House properly to discuss the question. I desire to move that Motion definitely, and I hope that you will take it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet has given his reasons. I do not agree with him, and under the circumstances the discussion must proceed.

Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps I might usefully intervene at this stage and make
an explanation. A Minister in my position is always in a very difficult case. On a Vote of this kind, which in former times has seldom been debated, I generally think it to be much more for the convenience of the House for the Minister to wait for a time to enable hon. Members who have questions to ask to put them, and then when all questions have been put to do his best to answer them. To-day, by waiting as I usually have done, my hon. Friends have complained that no information has been given to them. They will see the difficulty of my position, but I will try and give such help as I can to the Committee for a few minutes in the middle of the Debate. But I must apologise to those hon. Members who want to raise some matter and to put some further point if I do not deal with that point. Several points have been raised, and I propose to deal with them in as clear a manner as I can.
Some hon. Members who claim to be protagonists of economy have overlooked, I think, what this Vote really is. They seem to think that, while in former years little attention was paid to this Vote, yet in the year that is passing we have piled up a mass of new buildings all over the country on which we are now asking the Committee to vote more money. Of course nothing of the sort has happened. The Treasury is responsible for the payment of rates on Government property in the United Kingdom. If you can put your finger on any one Government Department that is demobilising its staff more slowly than another, the increase caused by that would be very trifling compared to the increase that had to deal with. It must be remembered first of all that the rates which come into this Vote are rates on all Government property, not only on the buildings connected with the Department, but on all buildings connected with revenue, administration of justice, and a thousand and one things for which Government buildings are used from one end of the kingdom to the other. I have a figure in my mind which, I think, may be of some help to the Committee, and that is that, large as his total figure is and much as we know the rates throughout the kingdom have risen, the gross figure of the whole amount for rates in the last financial
year preceding the War was £821,000 and in this year, with all the legacies of the War-time buildings which we still have with us, with the creation of a new-Department and with the enormous increased rates, the total is under £2,200,000. I am quite sure that, great as that increase is, if any of us had been asked without reference to actual figures to state what the increase actually was, we should have said that the difference was a great deal more.
If I may make one or two general remarks, I should like to point out to the Committee that the whole sum for which we are asking on the Supplementary Vote amounts to a sum that can be explained by a 3s. rise in rates over the kingdom, and that is, roughly, about the rise that has taken place. But in London, of course, the increase in certain parts has been more. To give the Committee two parts of London where the most valuable property is rated, we have an increase this year in Westminster of 2s. 6d., and in Woolwich and Plumstead of between 6s. and 7s. The increase of the education rates in the London area this year alone accounts for an increased expenditure of £48,000. One of my hon. Friends said with some assumption of reason, "Could you not have foreseen the rise in rates that was coming, and have estimated for it in the Estimate which you were preparing a year ago?" My answer to that is that, of course, everyone feared—never mind for the moment whether this can be laid to the door of the Government or not—everyone feared that rates would rise, but you cannot budget on hypotheses in cases of this kind. We might have made a completely wrong shot that would have thrown our figures out; we might still have had to come with a Supplementary Estimate, or we might have had a balance to pay back to the Exchequer. In cases like this it is far better to budget for the rates as they exist, and then come to this Committee in the event of the rates rising, as we have done, and show to the Committee what the rise is, and ask for the Vote as near as you can get it to the actual amount involved.
Some of my hon. Friends noticed that in the Vote the net amount is split up into two parts. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) stated that
it would be a very good thing to itemise all the rates for the benefit of the Committee. I would only remind him that if he were in my position and if he had done that, then he would in fact be blamed by a very large number of hon. Members for wasting stationery, because to publish in detail a statement of the properties subject to rates in this kingdom would mean a volume nearly as big as one of the volumes of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I assure him that this is correct.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My suggestion was not the property, but the Departments.

Mr. BALDWIN: Of course any suggestion that is put forward in Committee will be carefully considered, but I would remind hon. Members that the form in which the Estimate appears is the same in which the Estimate has always appeared hitherto. Whether it be a good thing or whether it be not a good thing to change the form of the Estimates, that could not be done in the case of an isolated Estimate nor until a decision had been come to as on the form of all the Estimates. That, I think, is another question, and one which has been and is being considered But on this occasion, with regard to this Vote, we are merely following precedent, and I am most anxious to give all the help I can to the Committee in coming to a decision on this matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord E. Cecil), I rather gather from the point of Order he raised, was under the impression that a portion of the £77,000 was for some new obligation. Of course, that is not the case. It is a case of retention. There is no case of new obligation of which I am aware.
I want to point out the difficulty of my Department in estimating at the beginning of the financial year in regard to buildings which are liable to be surrendered. My Department never ceases exercising such pressure as it can—and I only wish it were stronger—to get premises given up, but we have of course no premises directly in our own hands. We can only exercise such pressure as we are able, and, in framing our Estimates, after consultation with Departments, we make an Estimate of rates as they would be affected if the demobilisation of premises proceeded at a certain rate; and I would point out here that, of course,
the figure of £70,000 odd is swollen by the increased poundage. But, still, the net increase, of course, is considerable. There were certain factors of great uncertainty with regard to premises held for temporary occupation. If you take premises, for instance, that are held containing goods for disposal, the retention of those premises depends on the speed at which the Department concerned gets rid of the stores. That is a question over which we have no control, and of which it is very difficult to form any Estimate. Also the speed at which premises are got rid of depends on the speed at which either articles of bulk or small articles are disposed of. For instance, an unexpected delay of two or three months in disposing of a quantity of bulky material, or delay in getting shipments or payments, or the hundred and one odd causes that may lead to delay, prevent the surrender of buildings which we hoped would be surrendered. Cases like that occur, and our Estimate is thus thrown out.
Then, again, in surrendering premises, it is very often difficult to decide how much time will be taken to re-condition them, and get them in such condition that they can be handed over to the original owners. Delay has arisen in that way. There has been another way in which we made a miscalculation in trying to estimate this figure, namely, that during the year there have been certain premises in charge of the Ministry of Munitions which have been used for munitions, and which we hoped would have been given up and converted into constructional factories under the Ministry of Labour. In the same way, the Ministry of Pensions have continued the use, for their own services in one or two cases, of hospitals which we had thought, and hoped, might have been completely demobilised.

Earl WINTERTON: In the cases to which my right hon. Friend has referred as being retained by the Ministry of Pensions, does the Treasury ask the Ministry of Pensions to give detailed reasons why they have retained those buildings after they said they were going to be given up?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question may be put to the Minister from the point of view of general policy, but when it comes to the question of rates, supposing his answer is unsatisfactory to the Noble Lord, we cannot discuss it.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am quite prepared to answer my Noble Friend's question, but that is a point, I am afraid, which we could hardly discuss. There are two or three specific questions asked. I should like to repeat once more to my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles that no one feels more keenly than I the delay in getting rid of premises. It has always been a subject on which I have felt grave anxiety, and it is a subject where, as far as I am able, I exercise whatever pressure I can. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London called attention to the method of accounting and the Appropriations-in-Aid. If I may say so, I feel the greater sympathy with him, because, having had a commercial training, as he has, I found great difficulty when I first came to these Estimates in understanding what was comprised in Appropriations-in-Aid.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am quite certain I cannot.

Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend wants to know, as this money is credited here, where the debit occurs. The debit occurs in the Ordnance Factory Vote, where it is taken in as part of the cost of production. If it were not treated in that way it would appear on both sides of the bill, and swell the gross Estimates of the year. Those rates have always been treated in that way, but when we come to a time when we may have Estimates which can be more easily comprehended, it is possible that some easier way may be found of explaining this rather singular Appropriation-in-Aid. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have not put it yet. I gave notice.

Mr. BALDWIN: I rather gather from the interruption that there may be some further points to be raised, but I was very anxious to speak when I did, so that I might give such help as I could to the Committee on this particular Estimate. I realise as much as any Member the very natural and proper desire to give a thorough and proper examination to all these Estimates. It is very difficult on this particular Vote to give the examination hon. Members wish, but I can assure them—and I am sure they will believe me when I say so—that, as far as I can, and within the limits of this Estimate, I will do everything I can to make the whole matter perfectly clear.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: My object in endeavouring to-day to get rather more information on this particular subject is not in any way to attack the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, because I am perfectly certain he does far more to help us save money than to help us spend. But we are now faced with this additional sum required for rates, and what I want to get at is the proportion which comes from the various Departments. It should not be difficult to arrive at that, and if we look at the earlier Estimates in the year we see that for the Admiralty so much is required—a very considerable increase, incidentally, of nearly £100,000—for the War Department there is also a similar sum, and then there is the Post Office. As the Postmaster-General is present, perhaps he will be able to assist the right hon. Gentleman, and I think when questions of this sort are brought before the House, if I may say so very humbly, it would be rather more loyal to those who have to bear the heat and burden of the day if the various Departments concerned would help out the Treasury, which has all the blame—and most unjustifiable blame in many cases. I would like to draw attention to the fact that, so far as the Post Office was concerned earlier in the year, there was an increase of something like £90,000. I want to know, out of this additional sum now asked for, what goes to the Post Office, and, if possible, some details as to whether the amount is for new rateable promises or old rateable premises. But a very much more important point, to my understanding, than that is the question relating to the Ministry of Munitions. I believe it has changed its name—I suppose with the object of hiding its identity more or less—but earlier in the year we had an additional sum there of nearly £60,000. I want to know, just for information, which may be useful on a further occasion, what increase there has been in the amount of rates for property used by the Ministry of Munitions. This is supposed to be a dying Ministry, a defunct Ministry practically, and I want to know whether there has been a further increase beyond the £60,000 increase earlier in the year. There is only one other Ministry about which I am going now to indulge any curiosity, and that is
the Ministry of Food. That Ministry is supposed to be dying. Earlier in the year it was dying more or less, and I want to know whether any of this additional sum asked for to-day is required for additional premises for the Ministry of Food. I think probably not, but I am rather wanting to get that information, because I believe it would be a real help to the Government if they could show that these Ministries going out of existence were reducing the number of premises on which they now have to pay rates.

5.0 P.M.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: I think this Debate will have brought home to all hon. Members present, if it had not dawned on them before, that when Government offices come down with great Votes to this House, that is not the end of them, and that, just as if you throw a boulder into a pond, the ripples extend in ever-widening circles, so do Government waste and extravagance appear again and again in the same superfluous department in Supplementary Estimate after Supplementary Estimate. On Friday, the buildings; now the rates; to-morrow. I suppose, something else. I do not propose to make any detailed interpolation of my right hon. Friend, except on one particular point. I want to know whether these rates on houses occupied by representatives of foreign Powers include the premises in Chesham Place, formerly occupied by the Embassy of the Imperial Russian Government, and whether they include the rates paid on the former Consul-General's establishment in Bedford Square of that same Imperial Government. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford of course treats this matter lightly. He thinks, what are a few thousand pounds hero and there. I am trying to save just two or three hundreds, and it can be done without harm to anyone. These premises have been the hotbed of intrigue and mischief making.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into that question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged to you, Sir, and I will not transgress your ruling. I was merely pointing out, it is quite wrong to pay rates for promises occupied by representatives of foreign Powers if they are to include two establishments, expensive
buildings, here in London, which are not occupied by the representatives of any foreign Power.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite right for the hon. and gallant Friend to ask information as to whether rates are paid on these particular properties. I only intervened when he began to discuss what those premises are used for.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It would be interesting to know if the British taxpayers are paying rates on those premises. I shall certainly refuse to vote money for such a thing, and I hope that other hon. Members, whether super-economists or hyper-super-economists, or only people who have some regard for the decency of public expenditure, will support me.

Commander BELLAIRS: I am sure the Committee will agree that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury exhibits every degree of zeal for economy, and he will agree, I think, that the Committee have only a desire to help him, to give him an extra push by means of which he can travel a little faster in that direction. I desire to ask him a few questions. I noticed that under Class 2 (c) the rates paid are rates for England only. Does that mean that this Estimate does not cover Scotland and Wales or that there has been no increase in rates in Scotland and Wales? Of course I know it does not cover Ireland. That is information which I think it is essential we should have before us. Then, I believe the Government is its own rating authority. It has no control over the rates as fixed, but it makes its own assessments as to the value of its property. Therefore it has in a large measure control over the rates. I do not know whether from year to year it assesses these properties or whether it accepts the former assessment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten us on that point. I would also like to know how much of the rates are due to staffs of Government Departments and how much to Government undertakings such as factories and dockyards. A great many of these undertakings have been leased to private enterprise, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us a little information as to whether there has been any great saving in the rates owing to properties other than buildings occupied by Government officials having been leased to private enterprise.

Mr. T. THOMSON: It is clear from the lucid statement of the Financial Secretary that practically the whole of this supplementary increase is due to the increased rates, and he defended his position by saying that the practice in the past in budgeting ahead was not to include any possible increase that might take place in the rates. It may be presumptuous for me to say so, but I suggest that whatever might have been the practice in the past, it is a question to inquire into whether it is a sound business proposition to ignore entirely, when you are making your Estimates for the financial year, what are almost certain to be the increases likely to take place in the standing charges. Any ordinary business concern has to take into account the increased charges which it is probable it may have to pay during the coming year. Those who are experienced in local authorities, and in making up their accounts for the coming year know very well they have to estimate as nearly as they can the increases which will probably take place for wages, taxes and other purposes, and I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be worth considering whether it does not make for sounder finance to budget ahead on an estimate of what is likely to be the expenses for the whole of the Departments, including the increases in rates. Last year the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Supplementary Estimates apologised for the sum of £213,000 which was then the supplementary increase required, and said that increase was due to the rise in wages and the rise in rates, the same as this year. Last year it was £213,000, this year it is £328,000. I put it again to him that it would make for sounder finance if he took into consideration and estimated as near as his Department can what would be the likely extra charges in the forthcoming year. He referred to the education rate in the London area as being responsible for some of the increase. That was an ascertainable fact because it was due to legislation promoted by this Government. Reference has been made to the rating of Government property in various local authorities. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman that wooden huts do not pay rates. I would like to ask him whether all property owned and leased by Government Departments pay rates in their particular local area. With regard to the assess-
ment, I understand it is made not by the local assessing authority, but by the Government itself. Is that assessment which the Government fix for themselves based on similar conditions and on similar allowances as the assessment made by local authorities, or do they have preferential treatment, and, further, do the Government have a quinquennial or other re-assessment in order that their property shall be assessed as near as possible at a value comparable to that which other people have to pay? In large industrial centres where the rates are heavy the burden becomes all the greater if the Government as taxpayer has not paid its fair share.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to give me one piece of information. It seems to me that the Food Controller must have given up a great many buildings during the year, and that various other Departments have diminished and given up a great many premises, and it would be of great assistance to us to understand, when decontrol is taking place and when the Government are attempting to be economical, what has been the total saving in rates in the Budget estimate, and what it has been in previous years, so that we can form some idea of how many buildings are being given up.

Colonel NEWMAN: The Secretary to the Treasury will no doubt, in the course of his reply, answer the question put to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, who asked if we were still paying rates on that property known as Chesham House, where the Russian Embassy used to be. While he is answering that, I would like him to state whether we pay the rates of that luxurious suite of buildings taken by Mons. Krassin in a luxurious thorough-fare in London? Of course, the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull will say the people in Chesham Place represented nobody and the people in Bond Street did represent somebody. Perhaps they did then. Do they now? On the larger question of the rates on houses occupied by the representatives of foreign Powers, I also want to ask the Secretary to the Treasury one or two questions. I remember last year I raised a similar question to this. We had then the great house in Carlton House Terrace, formerly occupied by the German Em-
bassy, practically empty. It was then partly occupied and partly unoccupied. Part of it was occupied by the Swiss Government, on behalf of the German Government, and I asked whether we, as a Government, were responsible for the rates on that great and magnificent house. I was told we were. I was told that the understanding was that during the War the houses where representatives of foreign Powers had been housed were being kept at our expense, because they were doing the same thing for us. So far, so good. Now, some of these great Powers have been broken up into a number of smaller Powers, and we have a great number of small States—Lithuania, Esthonia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, to name only four. I take it that all these Powers will establish Legations in London, and that they will all take houses and use them. I know that they are taking houses. I want to know if in every case we have to pay the rates of the houses taken on behalf of all these new Powers. Can the Secretary to the Treasury give us what the cost will be to the taxpayer? I suppose he will tell us that we get a quid pro quo, but I would point out that these other countries do not pay the rates. This is a big question. We have these small States, who will all want houses, and we shall have to pay the rates, and I want to know what return we shall get for this expenditure.

Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to say that I agree with the statement as to the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has prepared this Estimate. I think he was right in founding his Estimate on the rates for the present year. You could not tell whether offices would be dispensed with, and you could not tell whether the rates would or would not rise. I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his information with regard to the Appropriation-in-Aid for the Ordnance factories. My right hon. Friend said that he was exercising pressure upon the various Departments to reduce the number of houses which they occupy, and I am very glad he is doing that. I hope he will continue to do it, and I trust the pressure will be of a severe kind. I know there are various degrees of pressure; and I hope the pressure of my right hon. Friend will be of an extremely hard character. My right hon. Friend said that previous to the War the amount paid in rates was £800,000. I cannot find that
the rates have increased in the proportion mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). It is true that where the Labour party are in control the rates have gone up very much.

Mr. SWAN: Nothing of the kind.

Sir F. BANBURY: I appear to have stated a fact which is a little unpleasant, and I did not intend to do that. I was merely acquainting the House with a very simple fact which I have been able to ascertain. In the City of London the rates have gone up from 6s. 6d. to 10s. 1d., while in Bethnal Green they have gone up from 8s. to 19s. 11d.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. Wilson): The right hon. Baronet is not in order in discussing these increases in rates.

Sir F. BANBURY: We are astonished at the small increase in these rates, because, with the exception of places where the Labour party are in control, the rates have not anything like trebled and the most they have done is doubled. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman is always extremely fair to the Committee and most anxious to give full information.

Mr. MYERS: At this time last year, when the various local authorities had their administration under consideration, nothing was so certain in the minds of people acquainted with the needs of local authorities as that a very heavy rise in local rates would take place. Having regard to the mass of Government property which exists all over the country and the rise that has taken place in local rates, we should have expected to have found the amount much larger than it is. I join with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough in suggesting that the Government might well have anticipated this rise in local rates which has taken place. Obviously, the Government Department has to choose between two things, that is either budget well in advance, anticipating probable rises, or budget on the rates which prevail at a given period and then come for a Supplementary Estimate. Those with experience of municipal administration know that it is best to budget well ahead rather than come for a supplementary demand later on.
It is also well known, and it is very desirable that we should know the basis of assessment levied on local authorities in respect of Government property. It is notorious that Government buildings are very much under-assessed, and they are a burden upon the local authorities. If Government property contributed to the local rates in the same proportion, as private individuals then the rates of the local authorities would benefit. I think it is desirable that we should have some information as to the particular Departments which have control and occupy these properties. We want to know how many of these properties have been handed over wholly or in part to private individuals, and we want to know whether the rates are included in this Estimate. When property changes occupation the officials of the local authorities adjust the rates in proportion, and as soon as any property or any portion of property passes from the Government to a private individual the rates will be adjusted from that point and they cannot appear in this Estimate. I think the reply which the Secretary to the Treasury gave in respect of the general position of this Estimate was exceedingly satisfactory, particularly to those who have had experience of local rating and the general effect arising therefrom.

Mr. KILEY: I want to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government are now prepared to withdraw the veto which they exercise in the levying of rates on the buildings which they occupy. In my own constituency where formerly the Government had only one or two buildings the question was not of much importance, but they have increased the number of those buildings. When the rates were low it was not a matter of great importance, but with the rates as they are now, and the number of buildings which the Government Departments are retaining, it means that the local authorities are not able to assess those buildings at their full value. The effect is that in my own constituency we are not receiving a much larger amount, and if we were receiving the proper proportion our rates would be much smaller. This is quite the reverse of the procedure under which the Government are giving increased grants to local authorities because, in the case of my constituency, the local authority is really,
through the rates, making a grant to the Government. Has the time not arrived for the Government to withdraw their veto and let their buildings be rated the same as any other buildings? If the Government are not prepared to do that then they should give up some of their buildings, because the policy they have adopted does inflict a hardship upon the poorer districts.

Sir D. MACLEAN: We have had a very interesting and, I think, important discussion, notwithstanding the rulings which the Chair has felt bound to give on this Supplementary Estimate. It has become quite clear, as the discussion proceeded, that the main idea in the minds of hon. Members criticising the Estimate was that it was their only chance of expressing to the Government their dissatisfaction with the slow rate at which Government buildings have been evacuated and the consequent increase which has had to be asked for for rates and other payments. We all gladly admit that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in a difficult situation, has done his best to satisfy the Committee, but it is perfectly clear, as far as he was concerned, that he has no control whatever over these matters, and if the efforts of the Committee had persisted in pursuing this matter to its logical conclusion we should have had the Government Bench peopled with Ministers and various Under-Secretaries to give explanations why these war occupations had been continued. I feel bound to press my proposal for a reduction to a Division. The amount I suggest to be knocked off is £28,000, and that was not merely a shot in the air. It was a rather carefully calculated amount, and I am pretty sure it very nearly covers the increase of rates on the great majority of the premises which might have been evacuated if the Government policy had been directed to that end. In the second place, I am going to press the Motion to a Division in order to help my right hon. Friend. I am sure he will understand this is not a personal matter. We know he is doing his best with the various Departments. He is one of the watchdogs at the Treasury to see that all unnecessary expense is cut down, and if a sufficient number of Members go into the Lobby and express their views on this matter, my right hon. Friend and the
Treasury will be immensely strengthened in their work of cutting down expenditure. I have not the slightest doubt that the result of last Friday's Division will be to save millions to the country. Estimates are now being prepared, and Departments know what the House of Commons is thinking about these things, and what it is prepared to do. If the House will only back the right hon. Gentleman up in the Lobby—no doubt it will be a minority Lobby again—I am certain that the expression of their opinion will add to the moral authority of my right hon. Friend and those who work with him in seeking to reduce the national expenditure.

Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: We are all glad to see that the Vote asked for to-day is solely on account of the continuance of war occupations. I would like to ask whether any payments in respect of new occupations by Departments beyond their existing premises are included in the figures asked for. Let me give a case in point. The finest offices in the Empire are those known as the Home Office. Ever since the Coal Mines Regulation Act has been in force, the housing of that great Department has been in the Home Office, but since about July last, under the Mining Industry Act, the whole of the Coal Mines staff, some of the most responsible men in the country, have been taken over to the Hotel Windsor. I can imagine no change so miserable as that. It is like stepping out of what really is to all intents and purposes a palace into something very little better than a hovel. Those of us who know the Hotel Windsor know it is necessary to have artificial light all day in practically every room in the building. I would like to know whether there is any charge for rating in respect of the Hotel Windsor, and, if so, what is the proportionate lessening of the rate on the Home Office. This is no doubt a very difficult question for the right hon. Gentleman to answer, and no one can complain if, at the moment, he is unable to do so. Still, we have a right to say that these utterly useless and worse than useless changes ought not to take place if the consequence is a substantial increase in the expenditure of the country, because there must be a decrease in the physical efficiency of what is after all a wonderfully fine staff. We all thought during the last two years that there would be a substantial reduction in the amount
paid by the Government for rates. When they left the Hotel Victoria—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It was ruled a little while ago from the Chair that details as to particular buildings could not be entered into under this Vote.

Mr. S. WALSH: Surely we have a right, when arguing in favour of a reduction, to give illustrations! We know that within the last two or three years large establishments like the Hotel Victoria, the Grand Hotel, and the Hotel Cecil have been vacated, and we have been entitled to hope that there would be a reduction in the heavy charge for rates paid by the Government on property which they have occupied but ceased to occupy a considerable time ago. While the War was on everything had to give way to it, and there was no one in this House who did not recognise the immense force of circumstances. But to-day all the social amenities of this part of London have disappeared. St. James Park—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has already given his illustration and should be content with that.

Mr. WALSH: In the overwhelming desire that the expenditure of the nation shall be reduced, especially upon useless matters, we have a right to sec that these Supplementary Estimates are thoroughly examined. An hon. Member reminded us just now that, after all, we have to pay. Of course, we have to. As a matter of fact, these are not Estimates; they are bills to be collected. Ordinary municipalities recognise the force of events, and gauge in some fashion what is likely to occur in the ensuing year. But Government Departments seem to have no provision at all. They appear to think it is their duty to tickle the ears of the taxpayers by making the Estimates as low as possible. They think they gain great éclat from the people by bringing in satisfactory-Budgets, and they say: "We can make it all right later on, and bring in a Supplementary Estimate." Later on, when explanations are asked for, and it is inquired why the expenditure has not been foreseen, their reply is: "Ah, it is impossible, fallible as we are, how can we be gifted with foresight like that?" Thereupon, hon. Members march through the Division Lobbies and vote confidence in the Ministry, believing
that if that were not done, the heavens would fall. I hate Supplementary Estimates. They are not good business, either for the House or for the country. I shall therefore support the reduction of this Vote.

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think the Heavens will fall if I cease to be a Minister, and certainly I shall get a holiday. There are one or two points I desire to answer, and then I hope the Committee will be ready to go to a Division after a very useful and interesting discussion. With regard to the old Russion Embassy in Chesham Place, the position is that the rates have been paid for the first six months of last year. There are some negotiations going on now, but in no case will any payment be made on that building after the close of the current financial year. With regard to consulates, no payment is made under any circumstances. They are responsible for their own rates. With respect to the premises in Bond Street, whatever is done with them is subject to the terms of the tenancy by the people who took them. Nothing is paid by the Government there. With regard to diplomatic premises generally, I may say, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield, that any new cases which come forward have to be examined and sanctioned by the Treasury. The rule hitherto has been that an ascertainable portion of the rates is paid by this country on the Embassies of foreign countries on reciprocal terms that they in their country pay similar

charges on our Embassies. It is a matter of negotiation and agreement, and, of course, must have formal sanction.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then we are paying rates on Chesham Place.

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think I need repeat what I have said in regard to that. The position with respect to valuation is that the valuation for the assessment of Government properties is made by the Government. It is a very old-standing method of assessment, arrived at many years ago, and it has a good deal of history behind it. The valuation is revised quinquennially. When that valuation is made, the actual amounts paid will, of course, depend on the rates prevailing in the district. It is impossible for me, by a stroke of the pen, to make such alterations as the hon. Member for White-chapel (Mr. Kiley) desires. Any changes of that kind must necessarily be made by the Government, after consideration of the whole question. With regard to the point which was put by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh), I am sure he must realise that I could not give detailed figures in a Debate of this kind. I have done my best to answer the points that have been put to me, and I hope that the Committee will now be prepared to come to a decision.

Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £300,000 be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 211.

Division No. 14.]
AYES.
[5.47 p.m.


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest


Atkey, A. R.
Gritten. W. G. Howard
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Grundy, T. W.
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Poison, Sir Thomas


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Raffan, peter Wilson


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hayward, Major Evan
Rendall, Athelstan


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Holmes, J. Stanley
Royce, William Stapleton


Briant, Frank
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Irving, Dan
Spoor, B. G.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Swan, J. E.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Johnstone, Joseph
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cautley, Henry S.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Kiley, James D.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lawson, John J.
Wignall, James


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Devlin, Joseph
Lunn, William
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Finney, Samuel
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)



Galbraith, Samuel
Mills, John Edmund
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Glanville, Harold James
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Mr. G. Locker-Lampson and Major Barnes.


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Mosley, Oswald



Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)



NOES


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Perkins, Walter Frank


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Purring, William George


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Armitage, Robert
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Prescott, Major W. H.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Gretton, Colonel John
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Purchase, H. G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Rae, H. Norman


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Randies, Sir John S.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Rankin, Captain James S.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hilder, Lieut-Colonel Frank
Reid, D. D.


Barrand, A. R.
Hoare, Lieut-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Romnant, Sir James


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Renwick, George


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hood, Joseph
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n.W.)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Rodger, A. K.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hopkins, John W. W
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Briggs, Harold
Hunter-Weston, Lieut-Gen. Sir A. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Britton, G. B.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Butcher, Sir John George
Jephcott, A. R.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Campbell, J. D. G.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Carr, W. Theodore
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Stanton, Charles B.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Kidd, James
Starkey, Captain John R.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Clay, Lieut. Colonel H. H. Spender
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Stevens, Marshall


Clough, Robert
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Stewart, Gershom


Coats, Sir Stuart
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Surtees Brigadier-General H. C.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lloyd, George Butler
Taylor, J.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lorden, John William
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lynn, R. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
M'Guffin, Samuel
Townley, Maximilian G.


Cope, Major Wm.
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Vickers, Douglas


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
M'Lean, Lieut. Col. Charles W. W.
Waddington, R.


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Walters, Rt. Hon. sir John Tudor


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Magnus, Sir Philip
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Mailaby-Deeley, Harry
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Matthews, David
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Dockreil, Sir Maurice
Middlebrook, Sir William
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Moles, Thomas
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Murchison, C. K.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Neal, Arthur
Winterton, Earl


Fildes, Henry
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Wise, Frederick


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Foreman, Sir Henry
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Woolcock, William James U.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Forrest, Walter
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Foxcrott, Captain Charles Talbot
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Younger, Sir George


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Pearce, Sir William



Gange, E. Stanley
Pease, Rt. Hon, Herbert Pike
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


Original Question put, and agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS, IRELAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £108,260, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for Expendi-
ture in connection with Public Buildings in Ireland, for the Maintenance of certain Parks, Harbours, and Public Works, for the Maintenance of Drainage Works on the River Shannon, and for sundry Grants-in-Aid.

Mr. BALDWIN: I propose to say only a very few words in introducing this Estimate—

Sir D. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. With every possible respect to my right hon. Friend—and he knows that I do not take any points which personally affect him—I really should like to ask him why this Supplementary Estimate is being presented by him instead of by the Irish Office?

6.0 P.M.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend did not know that the Treasury is responsible for the Board of Public Works in Ireland. In introducing this Estimate, my right hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Henry) would have carried much heavier guns than I can. It will be noticed that by far the greater amount in this Vote is directly concerned with the work of the Irish Constabulary. Under Item A, there is a sum of £23,500 for securing buildings in Belfast, which, although ultimately they will be required for increased postal accommodation, and for bringing together all the work of the Tax Commission, are required immediately for bringing together the Divisional Commissioner of the Royal Irish Constabulary in that district, the Commandant and Paymaster of the Force in the City of Belfast, and the Headquarter Staff of the County of Antrim Police, it being considered desirable to bring together these scattered units into one building, for purposes both of security and of efficiency. Similarly, in item B, for New Works, by far the greater amount goes to the keeping up of a depôt at Gormanstown for the Royal Irish Constabulary. Item C is one with which we are only too familiar in this country. It represents the increase in the cost of maintaining and supplying public buildings—the increase which has arisen during the last year— and it must be remembered that the Board of Public Works in Ireland has under its control practically the whole of the Government buildings for every purpose throughout that country. When you look at the figure in the original Estimate under that head, the increase is no more than that which has occurred from time to time, and corresponds approximately to similar increases with which we are familiar in this country. Under Subhead D, the money there is divided between work for the Ministry of Pensions in the equipment of hospitals under their authority and work for the Ministry
of Labour in providing training centres for ex-service men. Item H (c) is recoverable from the rates, and should not be a permanent loss, and Item H (d) is a matter of compensation to tenants who were turned out of certain buildings in Dublin which were commandeered for payment of the out-of-work donation. The original claim sent in was for something like £17,000 or £18,000. It has been a long time in dispute, and has been settled at last for £2,770. The necessity of the work in providing premises shortly after the Armistice for the payment of out-of-work donation may be realised when I tell the Committee that somewhere about £900,000 has been paid out of that office. I have introduced this Estimate briefly, bringing before the Committee just an outline of the subjects of which it treats. I have no doubt various questions will be asked, and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Henry), who is more familiar than I with the details of these subjects, will reply.

Mr. DEVLIN: I propose on another Vote to make a very considerable draft on the patience of the House, but just at this moment I will deal with the first item, namely, A, Purchase of Sites and Buildings, purchase, of premises for public Departments, Belfast, £23,500. As this is an absolutely non-political and non-partisan question, I trust I shall get the attention especially of the anti-waste party because I consider the transaction the payment for which this House is now asked to sanction is a very disgraceful one for two reasons. In the first place 18 months ago the building for which the Government paid £23,500 was bought by a Belfast speculator for £4,000. I hear constantly in this House and out of it the ever-insistent demand of English Members for the evacuation by the Government of premises in this country which are occupied for Government purposes. Here is a case where the Government are not really evacuating but taking and holding premises, paying £23,000 for them when they were sold for £4,000 only 18 months ago. That in my opinion is a Vote which will have to be justified in a much more effective way than it has been justified by the right hon. Gentleman. What happens in this case? I am not a member of the Anti-Waste League. I do not care how much British money you throw away in Ireland. It is
no business of mine. It is entirely a matter for the propagandists of economy and for the anti-wastrels.
The point I want to raise is this, that not only do they pay £23,000 for premises which were sold 18 months ago for £4,000, but they proceed to evict from their business premises 20 of the leading manufacturers and manufacturers' agents in that city. These men are all opposed to me in politics. Some of the most eloquent speeches which have rung on the hustings against me were the result of the florid oratory and rhetoric of these gentlemen who have been driven from their premises. But I stand for justice. In one case soldiers came and took the furniture out of one of these manufacturers' offices and flung it on the street, and the furnishings and equipment of these offices, if they had not been removed a few hours before, would have met a similar fate. Armoured cars, the machinery of the Empire, the Union Jack under which these gentlemen had stood and flourished and grown eloquent and impressive were brought there to have them evicted, and the 20 Unionist merchants and manufacturers, one of them employing 30 or 40 women, did not get time to get down the stairs. There was a council of war to see if they could get out of the back windows in time. I do not know what the conditions are in this country, but in Belfast it was absolutely impossible for these men to get substitute premises. One man, employing 20 women, and carrying on a manufactory, could not get premises. They have had to put their furniture away, and these 20 men have now been evicted, and this is the transaction which the House of Commons is asked to give its sanction to.

Sir F. BANBURY: Who got the £23,000?

Mr. DEVLIN: The speculator I expect. At all events he will get it when the right hon. Baronet and the Anti-Waste League go into the Government Lobby and support them. I do not know whether or not the money is paid yet. Perhaps we shall have a Government crisis. Perhaps you will take your courage in both hands and come along and vote with me against this transaction, and if you do we may defeat the Government and the Ulster Parliament may never come into operation.

Captain S. WILSON: They would not go out.

Mr. DEVLIN: No, they may never come in. You mean the Ulster Government?

Captain WILSON: No, this Government.

Mr. DEVLIN: They would not go out on any vote. If we cannot do it with a long pull and a strong pull and a pull altogether, let us gently push them and if it be a small majority to-day, as it was only 10 on Friday, we may be able to bring them to a sense of reality in regard to these questions. Divorce yourselves from your prejudices and come to business. This in my judgment is a transaction which should not be sanctioned by the House of Commons. There is a dual wrong perpetrated. There is the wrong of giving £23,000 for property sold for £4,000 only 18 months ago and there is the wrong done in putting these business men out of their premises and compelling them, not only to look for premises elsewhere which they cannot find, but to suspend their business. You had the spectacle of one of these Belfast merchants and manufacturers breaking the law for he actually refused to be evicted from the premises until the soldiers came and put his furniture on the street. I think you will realise the significance of this transaction and the importance of it being raised here.

Earl WINTERTON: I should like to ask two questions on another point in these Votes. First of all with regard to Sub-head D. Furniture, fittings and utensils, increased cost of labour and materials for the Ministry of Labour and for the Ministry of Pensions. I presume this is due to the lack of hospitals. I am not sure how far it is legitimate on this Vote to inquire of the presentative of the Ministry of Labour the exact purpose which is served by these training centres. I suppose there is no one in the House on either side who does not wish to see the fullest possible opportunity given to ex-service men in any part of the United Kingdom to be fitted by intensive, specialist, or by general training to earn his living in civilian employment. But we are always coming up against this difficulty where the question of the spending of money in Ireland is concerned. How are these men to obtain employment when they have been trained? Can the bon. Member tell me, for example, in the disturbed part of Ireland of any ex-service men who have been trained at Government training centres who have been able to
obtain employment without the fear of being murdered? I do not know of such a case. I am informed on the contrary that it is practically impossible for an ex-service man to be trained at a centre of the Ministry of Labour in Ireland to obtain work anywhere, and that the only chance of an ex-service man obtaining work is carefully to dissociate himself from the fact that he ever wore the King's uniform.

Mr. DEVLIN: I think the Noble Lord would not like to be too sweeping in his declarations. I have known hundreds of ex-service men obtain positions.

Earl WINTERTON: I was referring to the disturbed area in Southern Ireland. I am sure the hon. Member, as much as anyone, would be willing to help ex-service men. Many of the constitutional Nationalist party have gone to personal risk in doing so. But I am not referring to the North but to a large portion of the disturbed area. Obviously, if you are going to give the ex-service man in Ireland a chance of earning his living by intensive training in civilian life anywhere, you must give it in all parts of Ireland. If you cannot train him in the South of Ireland, you must give him an opportunity of being trained in England. Having regard to the condition of the ex-service man in the South of Ireland, I think it is right that we should have a statement from the Minister of Labour as to the steps they have taken to deal with the situation and how far in their training schemes they have been able to meet that situation.
I want to ask a question on policy with regard to Subhead C—Maintenance and Supplies, and the increased cost of labour and material in connection there-with. I am informed on good authority—on what I may call official authority—that it is the habit, again in the disturbed areas of Ireland, in connection with the erection of defences to military camps and barracks, to employ local labour. I am told by a high official who visited certain military camps where they had to set up defences by the erection of what is known as the apron system of wire defence, that 30 men were employed in putting up these defences, and that by day they were working for the Crown and by night they were members of the
Irish Republican Army. I think it is a very possible and probable explanation of the reason why certain defences have not been found as efficacious as they should have been, that the labour employed is local labour, people who are members of the Republican Army or who sympathise for one reason or another with the Sinn Fein forces. I should like an undertaking that whatever Department is responsible—I imagine the Attorney-General will reply, because I suppose the labour is employed by the Irish Government—that due care is, and will be, taken that in any form of work that is done on Government buildings the labour employed is not labour that is actively or passively sympathising with those who attack the forces of the Crown, and that the lives of those who are in the barracks or the camps are not endangered.
May I join in the appeal, though I do not agree with everything he has said, that was made by the hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast, that the anti-waste party should give us the advantage of their views on these very important questions. We recognise the very great assistance that we derived from their presence in this House—I understand that their party has been recruited from two to three—and we value the dignity which their presence confers upon us, but I think those of us who are trying to press upon the Government more economical procedure have some reason to feel, to put it mildly, dissatisfied with the lack of vocal effort and assistance that we have hitherto received from the anti-waste party. Encouraged by a question which was put to-day by one of the members of that party as to the size of envelopes used by the Ministry of Labour, I hope that that hon. Member will be willing to take, part in this Debate.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I should like to join my Noble Friend in urging that the party which we know as the Anti-Waste party should give us a little help. We heard a great deal about their coming, but since they have arrived in this House they have helped us by their presence rather than by what they have said, and many of us are beginning to feel that the feebleness of that party is going to reveal the febleness that distinguishes the "Wee Free" section of the Opposition. It would be a sad beginning
that this young party should show signs of becoming decrepit, like a section of the Liberal party, at such a very early date. On the Estimate I should like to know something about item "A," purchase of premises in Belfast. The original Estimate came to over £10,000 for purchase of site and buildings and provisional sum for the acquisition of premises for the Ministry of Transport and other Departments. When this originally came before us it was mainly for the purposes of the Ministry of Transport. Now we are told that it is mainly for the police. It would be worth while for the Government to tell us whether this change in policy means that the Ministry of Transport is reducing its policy, or does it mean that this expenditure is simply for the co-ordination of the police force and that, the Government have been able in this respect to curb the expenditure of the Ministry of Transport?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I should like to reply to the point raised by the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton)—

Mr. DEVLIN: Does not my point come first?

Sir M. BARLOW: The point raised by the hon. Member for the Falls Division does not really relate to the responsibilities of the Ministry of Labour. An appeal was made by the Noble Lord to the Ministry of Labour, and that is why I intervene. The two premises affected by this Vote are premises in Belfast and some premises in Tipperary which are on a different footing. The premises in Tipperary were originally started by a local committee, and the Government is now taking them over to develop them. The whole scheme is still somewhat in an undeveloped condition, but it is in connection with the taking over and development of hospitals that this Vote appears. The Franklin Building was taken over only in August of last year. In regard to both the schemes to which the Noble Lord referred, the difficulty which he anticipates has not yet arisen. As the Committee is aware, our training schemes occupy as a rule six, nine, or twelve months, and it is only when the trainees have been through the course that the difficulties such as the Noble Lord suggests might arise. We all know, un-
fortunately, the state of Ireland, and that there are difficulties, but the time has not yet arisen when in the normal course of training those difficulties have to be faced. I do not disguise the fact that there have been difficulties, but on the whole we have been able to deal with them. In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to the excellent work which the hon. Member for the Falls Division has rendered and the assistance he has given to my Department and to the cause of the ex-service men generally by the efforts he has made on their behalf in Ireland.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman has given us a very satisfactory explanation. He says that what my Noble Friend fears has not arisen and that it will not arise until these men have been trained. He says it does not arise until the scheme has been in operation for 6, 9 or 12 months. It is absurd to go into a scheme and to spend money for 6, 9 or 12 months when you do not know what is going to happen at the end of the time. That was the hon. Gentleman's explanation. He says, we do not think that these fears will materialise, but we cannot say whether they will materialise, because the scheme has not been in operation long enough. Before putting the scheme into operation, they ought to know whether or not the result will be satisfactory. That is what I complain about in all these Government schemes. They are all so very anxious to come forward as the Salvationists of the country. They have grand schemes which are going to do all sorts of things, but in nine cases out of ten what they do is to spend money, and nothing happens, except that the unfortunate Financial Secretary to the Treasury has to come down and sooth the House into passing the Vote. The hon. Member for the Falls Division should move a reduction.

Mr. DEVLIN: I propose to do that later.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I suggest to the hon. Member that it may be better if he moved his reduction now on the first item, so that we can confine our discussion to Item (A).

Mr. DEVLIN: In a case like that, I will do anything that the right hon. Gentleman asks me.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad to hear that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue in that mood, and will do what I ask him in other matters. The hon. Gentleman has made a very serious statement. It is about as serious a statement as any hon. Member could make in this House. He says that the Government have paid £22,500 for premises which 18 months ago were bought for £4,000 by the person from whom the Government purchased them. If that is true—I do not cast any doubt upon the accuracy of the hon. Member's statement, but he may have been misinformed, or there may be other circumstances which have not been brought to his knowledge—

Mr. DEVLIN: That was my information.

Sir F. BANBURY: It is so serious that I am endeavouring to support the hon. Gentleman in arriving at the real facts of the case, and if it is true that the Government have given £23,000 for a building which was bought 18 months ago for £4,000, everybody in this Committee ought to go in the lobby against the Government. That is the sort of thing we want to stop. That is the sort of reckless expenditure which arises when a Government official goes down the street and sees a building in a prominent position, which is convenient to his residence, or which he thinks will give him a certain air of importance when he enters it, so that everbody may know that he is a Government official of a very important Government Department. You cannot put a Government office in a back street, that would never do. It must be in the light of day and in the most expensive and most prominent position that can be found. That is bad enough, but if in addition to that the Government are so foolish as to give £23,000 for what was bought 18 months ago for £4,000, we have an instance of great waste, of which this House ought to show its disapproval by voting against the Government. I have great regard for the Ulster party and for the city of Belfast, but I thought they were going to have their own Parliament, and were going to deal with their own affairs. Why should I put my hand into my nearly depleted pocket in order to provide premises for my hon. Friends in Ulster. Now when strongly against my own convictions, Ulster is going to set up a Government it ought to be able to provide for it. The question raised here is
very serious. If the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) is right or any way nearly right, we ought to show our disapproval of the gross recklessness of the Government officials giving £23,000 for what was sold a few months previously for £4,000.

Major LOWTHER: I am glad to see certain hon. Members calling on the ever growing anti-waste party for advice.

Mr. DEVLIN: Not advice, co-operation.

Major LOWTHER: We are very glad to give either advice or co-operation. The fact that we do not always make our voice heard in the House or in Committee shows that we have perhaps a high appreciation of the economy of words as well as of the economy of money. There are occasions when a vote in the Lobby is as useful as a speech on the Floor of the House. This particular Estimate does show a very large additional sum required of no less than £108,000. The right hon. Baronet suggests that the hon. Member for the Falls Division should at once move to reduce Vote A, so as to concentrate discussion on that particular Vote. With all respect, I think it much better to let the discussion roam at large for a bit.

Sir F. BANBURY: We can do that afterwards.

Major LOWTHER: This Estimate is drawn up in such a way as to afford but little information to private Members. We have to rely on what we can elicit from the Government. Some of this additional expenditure may be essential. Some of it we think is not. But we want to find out what is in our view additional expenditure which should not be incurred. As the hon. Member for the Falls Division has not moved—

Mr. DEVLIN: I did not move, because I understood that if I did so we should not be allowed to discuss the other items. If permitted to do so, I am quite prepared to do it now. I rose a moment ago to move a reduction, but did not catch the eye of the Deputy-Chairman.

Major LOWTHER: I beg to move that Sub-head A (Purchase of Sites and Buildings, £23,500) be reduced by £10,000.

Colonel NEWMAN: I was anxious to hear something of this matter because I know something of the city of Belfast.
The right hon. Baronet has told us that the Government do not buy any sites except in important parts of a city, and we are told that in this important street in Belfast a speculator was able to buy a block of central buildings for £4,000. We are told that 10 gentlemen, substantial men, had their offices and businesses in that one block, and that one of that 10 employed no fewer than 40 women.

Mr. DEVLIN: I said a number of women.

Colonel NEWMAN: Then we have the complaint that this block of buildings in this growing town of Belfast which is bought by a speculator for £4,000 is in a few months sold to some Government buyer for £23,000. If the speculator had been able to do that I congratulate him, but it is a most amazing transaction, and if the facts be as stated I will vote with my hon. Friend below me against the Government.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): It is a source of surprise to me to hear one who is so well known, and so well thought of in Belfast as the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin), depreciate the value of property in that city.

Mr. DEVLIN: I have stated distinctly that I was glad they got the money out of the British taxpayer.

Mr. HENRY: I think that my hon. Friend will bear me out when I say that there is no city in the United Kingdom in which it is more difficult to obtain building accommodation for any purpose than in Belfast at present. I make that assertion without the slightest hesitation. My hon. Friend has not given us the source of this information as to this property which he says was acquired for £4,000, or as to the amount spent on repairs. But the Board of Works sent their official, a responsible valuer from Dublin, and he valued the premises. The right hon. Baronet drew a vivid picture of the officials going into these offices who would not be content with a mean street and would like their wives and neighbours' wives to see the magnificent premises in which they did their business. If the right hon. Baronet knew Waring Street as well as I do or the hon. Member for the Falls Division, he would not exactly compare it to Regent Street. It is an extremely narrow street.

Mr. DEVLIN: It is one of the most important streets in the city. It is the Bond Street of Belfast.

Mr. HENRY: I knew that truth would at last permeate the soul of my hon. Friend, because he recognises that it is one of the most important streets in Belfast. Yet he is amazed that where 20 of the leading merchants of Belfast—Unionist merchants—have their offices, from which the Government had to evict them, £23,000 should be paid for the purchase of these premises.

Mr. DEVLIN: What was the rent which these people were paying?

Mr. HENRY: I am not in a position to give that information, because I go on the information given by the Department through their skilled valuers who dealt with the matter. The result is that in what my Friend recognises as one of the most important streets in the City of Belfast—it is extremely important, though very narrow. It is held by the Ulster Bank. It is the hub of Belfast, one of the greatest cities in the Universe—these buildings are occupied at present by the following Government offices: The Assistant Under-Secretary for Ireland, who is in Belfast, the Divisional Commissioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Commandant and Paymaster of the City of Belfast, the Commandant of the County Antrim Forces, and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for Income Tax Collection, and it is ultimately hoped that it will be entirely available for all the branches of the Inland Revenue in Belfast.

Mr. DEVLIN: And the Ulster Parliament.

Mr. HENRY: When that comes the price of buildings will go further up in Belfast.

Mr. SWAN: Does he blame the Labour party for that?

Mr. HENRY: I do not cast the slightest imputation on the Labour party. We are dealing with another combination at present, but those are the facts. I am instructed that the Board of Works for twelve months tried to get accommodation in Belfast for the various Departments and were quite unable to do so. Ultimately they purchased these premises for £23,500 as was recommended to them
by their professional advisers, and that is the position.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I think that the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wholly unsatisfactory. The question is—were these premises bought about fifteen months ago for about £4,000? All he tells us is that these premises are in an important part of Belfast and are suitably occupied by Government Departments. That is not what the Committee want to know. They want to know if there is any basis at all in what my hon. Friend says. Suppose that he is £4,000 or £5,000 out and they were bought for £8,000 or £9,000, why do the Government pay £23,500 for them? He cannot answer that question. He has not got the information. But the Committee is entitled to have the information. It is a new Committee of the House of Commons that is dealing with the matter, and the Government had better recognise it. It is a Committee which, when it asks a reasonable question, is going to have an answer. If this goes to a Division we know what will happen. The majority of Members now present will admit that the position put by those who have spoken before me, representing all parties, is perfectly reasonable. But the decision is settled by men who have not heard a word of the Debate.
I would suggest to the Government, do not put us to the test of a Division. We know what will happen. About two hundred Members will vote for the Estimate and perhaps fifty or sixty will be in the minority. The House of Commons is entitled to ask that this Vote be withdrawn. There is plenty of time, and it would be better to withdraw it until the learned Attorney-General has had an opportunity of communicating with Ireland in order to get the answer required. Probably it will be a sound answer, to the effect that there have been remarkable developments in eighteen months, or something of that sort. Instead of having a blind vote to-day, let us act for once like business men. There is no question of obstruction. Let us have a business answer to a business question. That is all we are asking for. I am glad to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury present, as he is, after all, responsible. As he is a business man,
I would appeal to him to withdraw the Vote. We could then have all the details brought before us.

Mr. INSKIP: It is important that the Committee should know the facts, and as to whether this building was sold eighteen months before for £4,000; but it does not follow, if it was sold for £4,000, that it was not worth £23,000 when the Government bought it. What is also important is the statement of the learned Attorney-General that officials were sent down from Dublin to value properties in Belfast. He called those officials skilled advisers. If they went down from Dublin to value buildings in Belfast it is exactly what I would have expected. They would not know that the property had been sold for £4,000 eighteen months before. What is wrong is, that permanent officials or Dublin officials should go to Belfast to value property in Belfast. Valuation is not worth the paper it is written on unless the valuer knows about transactions in a particular property. In transactions of this sort in Ireland or in England, we should not have Government officials going down to value, merely putting on paper an opinion which is probably worth nothing. People on the spot should be employed. They would know all the facts as to dealings in the property in the previous few years. Then we should not have such a state of things as that to which attention has been drawn this afternoon. Perhaps the learned Attorney-General will say whether valuers in Belfast were employed?

Mr. HENRY: The Board of Works in Dublin have permanent officials, engineers and officials of that description, but they also know the local people whom they consult.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Inskip), but I venture very respectfully to say that he has led us a little astray from the point on which the Committee desire information. I want to associate myself entirely with the appeal for the withdrawal of the Vote. The Committee desire to get at the precise facts of this transaction. They would not, and I would not for a moment, desire to reduce this Vote if the Government have a reasonable explanation to give in answer to the legitimate question put to them by
the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin). If the Government are prepared with the facts and will give them now, we shall listen most readily. I suspect that there is a perfectly good and reasonable explanation, but until that explanation is forthcoming the Committee ought not, and I think will not, give this money to the Government.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I think we are groping about in the dark room for a black cat which does not exist. It is not often that I raise my vokce to support the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), but I think we ought to ask the Government to withdraw this Vote. I do not want to vote against the Government, but I certainly shall not vote for them on this question. If in my own office an estimate in this form were put on my table, I would send it back to my clerks and tell them I would not look at it. It is plain that the right hon Gentleman who represents the Irish Office for the moment does not know anything of the facts of the case. I therefore emphasise the appeal for the withdrawal of the Vote. Let the Government give us the facts and we will support them if the case merits it. I have not the slightest doubt that what the hon. Member for Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) has said has been told to us in good faith, and I do not for a moment believe that there is not a good explanation of the difference between the £4,000 and £23,000, but I am not going to vote on an Estimate like this unless I know something about it.

Mr. BALDWIN: The point raised is a perfectly legitimate point, and requires an answer, but I would remind the Committee that the learned Attorney-General has no knowledge of the transactions to which reference is made, nor have I, and it will be necessary to communicate with Ireland to find out what are the exact facts of the case. That, my right hon. Friend will do. As the right hon. Member for Peebles said, I am responsible for this part of the business of the Session, and I know the difficulty there sometimes is if a Debate on the Committee Stage be adjourned. I suggest that the Committee Stage be taken, and on the Report Stage I undertake that the facts, which by then will have been ascertained, shall be given to the House.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am sorry that I do not agree with my right hon. Friend. There will be no loss of time by withdrawal of the Vote. I quite agree that if we were nearing the end of the financial year my right hon. Friend might press his view upon the Committee with considerable force. But withdrawal of the Vote will not involve any loss of time. We can go on to other Supplementary Estimates. If the Committee Stage of this Vote is taken now, Members of the Committee will lose control of it. On the Report Stage there is an entirely different and more narrow procedure. At the moment we are seized with the position, and the Committee is entitled to have the Vote back in the position in which it is now when the explanation of it is given. There is no intention to obstruct. If we wanted to obstruct we could not do so.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am anxious only to save the time of the Committee. I think this matter has been very fully debated, and on the assurance of my right hon. Friend that he does not mean obstruction, I am willing to withdraw the Estimate.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Although this is a very important item in this particular Vote it is not the only item, and my right hon. Friend, I am sure, would not enter into any understanding unless with the assent of all parties in the House. I certainly intended to raise quite a different point on another item. I would concur in any agreement if it meant that our subsequent discussion was not to be confined to this particular point, but I could not enter into any undertaking to confine my observations to this particular item alone.

Sir F. BANBURY: If my right hon. Friend withdraws the Motion without any stipulation he is not in any way injuring himself. The course of business for the rest of the week, as far as I know, is this: To-morrow we are to take the Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Heading, and again on Friday. If this Vote is withdrawn, what will happen? There is a very large number of Votes in these Supplementary Estimates which must be discussed. All that will happen will be that this particular Vote will be transferred from one position in the Supplementary Estimates to another. We cannot possibly get the whole of the Supplementary Estimates through to-night. We are not
going to discuss them on Thursday and Friday. Therefore, if this Vote is withdrawn until next Monday, when the Government will be in a position to give the information required, they will not lose a single minute of time.

Mr. BALDWIN: I quite agree, I am willing to withdraw the Vote.

Major LOWTHER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CABINET OFFICES.

CLASS 2.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salary of a Minister without Portfolio and the Salaries and Expenses of the Cabinet Offices.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I wish to ask how much of this sum represents increase of salary to the Secretary, how much is allowances for private secretaries, how much for substitution of male for female staff, and for provision of additional temporary staff. I think we ought to know why exactly Sir Maurice Hankey's salary is being raised, what it is being raised from, and to what. I am sure nobody in the Committee would grudge Sir Maurice Hankey a single penny. There is probably no more valuable servant of the State to-day. Again, what is this additional temporary staff? Is it a staff doing the work in connection with the League of Nations? I understand that at present the work of maintaining touch between the British Government and our representatives on the Council of the League is not being done, as it ought to be done, by the Foreign Office and by this Cabinet Office. Has this additional temporary staff, in connection with the Cabinet Office, been enlisted in order to deal with the liaison between our Government and our representatives in Paris and Geneva, as the case may be?
In regard to Item C, what is the unforeseen expenditure on travelling in connection with international conferences? I see that already £2,000 has been voted
for this travelling, and people are beginning to ask whether travelling at the public expense is being done quite as cheaply as it might be. One is hearing that on all hands on this and on all other Votes, and I hope the Treasury will watch this matter most closely. We are continually being asked for further travelling grants for all Departments. This Cabinet Department is a very small one. I speak with some knowledge, because I have served in it without any pay. I know what it is and how well it works—very largely because it is a small Department. I hope there will not be a great extension of this office. The whole secret of Sir Maurice Hankey's success was, I believe, because that office was kept small and under his own personal supervision in every corner of it. I therefore ask for a little explanation, what these items are, lumped together in £3,000, and why an additional £500, which is a considerable sum, is needed for travelling.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY rose—

Mr. BALDWIN: I wish to answer the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Ormsby-Gore). I may, perhaps, be able to save the time of the Committee by making one or two remarks on this Vote. The word "additional" ought not to have been inserted. The staff is exactly the same, the only change is that there are fewer temporary women, and more temporary men. The increase in the period under review for the substituted staff comes to about £1,100 out of £3,000. The total extra cost there would be on this Vote in a whole year, and the substitution of ex-service men for women, would be about £1,400. I may take this opportunity of reminding the Committee of a fact, which probably they already appreciate, that the substitution of ex-service men for women is leading to considerable expense in Government offices—an expense which has to fall in with the prevailing opinion—and the Committee must be prepared to support the Estimate when it comes before it. Sir Maurice Hankey's salary was raised from £2,000 to £3,000 in conformity with the recommendations of a small Committee, which sat under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). Of this £3,000,
£1,100 is due to that increase. The other £800 arises in salaries, which were not provided for in the main Estimates, for the Secretary to the Minister without Portfolio. The Minister without Portfolio has now become Secretary of State for War, and the former office lapses. The secretary who worked for him, and now ceases to work for him, will not appear on next year's Estimate. With regard to travelling, on this particular Vote I think it has been kept within bounds. There have been no fewer than seven conferences held in the course of the financial year at various places on the Continent, three of them at considerable distances from London, and some nearer. There have been one or two conferences held in the South of England, where our Allies have come over to meet us. The number of conferences has been greater than was estimated when the original Estimate for this Vote was in course of preparation. I need hardly tell the Committee that I have been exercised during the year in the number of conferences, not only on this Vote, but on other Votes, which are being held, and I am in process now of taking steps to get some control over the numbers that travel and the expenses.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Then I understand it is not true that any part of this Vote is chargeable to the work of the League of Nations?

Mr. BALDWIN: No. There is no additional staff; it is exactly the same as it was a year ago, and is occupied on exactly the same business as it was then.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £;3,000.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman intended any intentional discourtesy; that is not usually his way. Perhaps he did not observe that I had some point to put to him. I do not think it is the way to save time for a Minister to rise, directly one hon. Member, like my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, has put a couple of points, and to endeavour to damp down the discussion. I object altogether to this Vote. I understand at the present moment that there is no Minister without Portfolio; there is no such person, I am glad to say. I hope nobody is going to be appointed to that post, and therefore, if that is to be the
policy, I would like to have seen—and I would like an explanation of why not— a saving which would just about have met this estimated expenditure of £3,500, namely, on the salary of the Minister without Portfolio. Already the number of Ministers in this Government, under-Ministers, is sufficient to carry a Friday Vote; just about, with the aid of a few faithful supporters. The chance of reducing that number should be taken by this House. The Committee has a chance here, and I suggest that it should support the reduction which I move, on the ground that the salary of the Minister without Portfolio would then find the greater part of this, no doubt, not needed expenditure. I have a further reason for moving a reduction, and that is because this business of travelling and exceptional expenses is not justified by the results. The more Peace Conferences we have, the more caravans of secretaries, and translators, and typists, and special aide-decamps, and so on, who flit from one capital of Europe to another, from one coast resort to another, from one villa to another, the more muddled your affairs become. We are a good deal worse off in regard to knowing what the policy of the Government is now than we were two years ago. This is a reason for refusing supplies for this perambulating circus, which is going about muddling the affairs of Europe.

Mr. MARRIOTT: The sum granted in this Vote is not a very large one. I am a good deal mystified by the salary for the Minister without Portfolio. My impression was—

Mr. BALDWIN: That is not on this Vote at all. It comes out of the Appropriation-in-Aid.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg your pardon; I withdraw entirely on that point. My mystification is dispersed on that matter. I would not for one instant suggest any opposition to the raising of the salary of the particular official who is concerned in this Vote, but I am a little bit mystified as to whether it is a special or general increase. On that point, perhaps, the Committee would feel more readily disposed to grant this Vote if they could be assured that there is no general increase in the permanent salaries to the permanent heads of the Civil Service. I do not know if this is meant to be a tem-
porary Vote or a permanent one, but I imagine, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that it is to be a permanent increase of salary, and not a temporary one for the current year. Something has been said from more than one side of the House about the number of persons who are employed by the public offices who travel, and the travelling and subsistence allowances made to them. I am very anxious to find out whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the recommendation of the Select Committee on National Expenditure in reference to this very point; not so much in regard to the number of people employed, as to the manner in which they travel. Evidence was taken by one of the Sub-Committees of that Select Committee. I happened to be in the Chair at the time. I quote from the Report on the subject of the travelling and subsistence allowances of various inspectors, and so on:
The privilege of travelling first-class on railways is at present allowed"—
I want to know whether this is the case—
to all officers in respect of salaries rising to £600 a year, and virtually to all officers of salaries between £400 and £600 a year. The Committee suggests that this Regulation involves unnecessary expense to the Exchequer, and they recommend that in future no officer receiving a salary, exclusive of War bonus, at a rate of less than £1,200 a year should be allowed that privilege.
The point I want to ascertain is whether as a matter of fact an increasing number of officials are permitted to travel first-class and to draw subsistence allowances corresponding to their travelling expenses. This is a matter which, of course, is not confined in its importance to this particular Vote, but it is raised by this Vote.

Sir J. D. REES: I have not risen to support the reduction of the Vote, and I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury very fairly answered the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), who testified to various shortcomings and faults in the Department, of which, having served in it, I presume he was himself to some extent an illustration. Reference was made to an obvious feeling on the part of this House that males should always be substituted for females. I hope that is not the case irrespective of cost.
Surely if a woman in special offices of this description—and after all comparatively few people are private secretaries to private secretaries—is doing her work well she should not be put aside in order to make way for a man, and I urge the Government not to carry out this feeling of the House, if indeed it exists, to the detriment of the women who are performing their duties in this case admirably, and to the satisfaction of those for whom they work. As regards travelling by train, I take it that the object of giving an official a first-class ticket is not that he may travel in luxury and comfort. The people with these salaries that have been mentioned would not take first-class tickets if they bought them out of their own pockets, but I take it the real object is that the officials, supposing there are two or three gathered together, as generally happens, particularly on journeys of this description, should have a certain amount of isolation, so that they can if necessary discuss their business with one another without the intrusive company of some person or persons who might make some evil or malevolent use of anything they might overhear in a railway carriage. If that is the case—and I believe I have rightly stated the ethics governing the case—the whole requirements of the officials concerned are quite satisfactorily met, even if there are only two or three gathered together, and at any rate where there are four or five, in taking a third-class compartment for them. There is no greater comfort in having red plush cushions. It is the space and the company, or the want of company, that makes people pay higher fares on the railway. In this respect I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) that a great deal of money might be saved, if only the Government would look to the real ethics of the case, the reasons why first-class tickets are given, and would lump them together in comfortable third-class carriages, which in this country are quite good enough for anybody.

Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear!

Sir J. D. REES: On many railways they are even better than the first-class carriages, because they are not so stuffy, velvety, and upholstered with the same uncomfortable opulence. If the Government would only deal with them in that fashion we should have a saving on these Votes. In conclusion, I would add that
I am glad indeed to find that no further expenditure is being incurred under this Vote for that already expensive and so far ineffectual institution, the League of Nations.

Mr. MOSLEY: My right hon. Friend did not quite reply to the original question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) in connection with the undertaking of Foreign Office work by this Department. He did reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) that the increase in salaries was in no way due to the undertaking of liaison work at International Conferences and work in connection with the League of Nations. Presumably, some of the travelling and incidental expenses in connection with International Conferences was due to the fact that the Cabinet Offices are to-day undertaking work which properly belongs to the Foreign Office, and that raises a very great question. Personally, I cannot vote for an Estimate which means the continuance of a system which I believe to be thoroughly vicious. The Prime Minister to-day surrounds himself with a staff of amateurs who improvise settlements in a European situation of peculiar difficulty and complexity, and the relationship between the expert Foreign Office staff and this band of amateurs is highly anomalous.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): We are not now discussing the original Vote, but only the Supplementary Vote.

Mr. MOSLEY: May I point out, with all respect, that under Item C we find "provision for increased fares and for additional expenditure on travelling in connection with International Conferences," and I submit that this additional item would not be necessary unless the Cabinet Offices were usurping the proper functions of the Foreign Office.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That principle has been agreed to by the original Vote, and the only question now is whether £500 more should be granted for that service, not whether the Vote should be there at all.

Mr. MOSLEY: The Cabinet Offices staff are to the extent of £500 undertaking additional work that should belong to the Foreign Office, and I submit
that this raises the whole question, or a large part of the question, in connection with the respective functions of the Foreign Office staff and the Cabinet Offices staff.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I could not allow that matter to be discussed now. On the original Estimate £2,000 was granted for this purpose, and that is when the principle was settled. Now the only question is one of £500 excess payment for travelling and incidental expenses, and it would not be in order to discuss the desirability or otherwise of having a staff for this purpose or the work they do.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I notice that on the original Estimate this sum of £2,000, to which you, Sir, refer, includes sums other than travelling expenses, because it says, "Newspapers and miscellaneous expenses." I therefore submit that it is not only putting £500 on to the £2,000, but it really is more, because the travelling expenses were less than £2,000, and therefore this increase of £500 is relatively a very large sum. I submit to you on a well-known principle that where the increase is a relatively large sum then you can rediscuss the question of policy.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. If the amount of the Supplementary Estimate is very large as compared with the original Estimate, then the Chair, in the exercise of its discretion, can allow a discussion on the original question, but I do not read into this Supplementary Estimate any such comparatively large increase. I do not think it is sufficiently large a sum to warrant me departing from the ruling I have already given.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I understood my hon. Friend behind me took the point of the travelling for the International Conferences. In your discretion, you may rule against him, but that was the point he took, that the travelling to these International Conferences showed that this particular Department in his view was interfering with the recognised functions of the Foreign Office.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is exactly what I ruled out of order. It is not in order to discuss the question whether this Department interferes with the work of the Foreign Office. That was
settled on the original Vote, when £2,000 was granted, and the only question now is whether the Committee are willing that a supplementary £500 should be granted.

Mr. MOSLEY: Am I entitled to ask to what extent this additional sum of £500 implies that the Cabinet Offices staff are taking over functions from the Foreign Office additional to those contemplated in the original Estimate?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Certainly.

Mr. MOSLEY: Then may we be told by the Financial Secretary to what extent the Cabinet Offices staff are taking over the functions of the Foreign Office beyond what was contemplated in the original Estimate, and which conferences the members of the Cabinet Offices staff attended instead of the representatives of the Foreign Office? At any rate this Supplementary Estimate represents a great aggravation evidently of a system to which we have already taken exception, and the evil is constantly growing. The cloud which was originally no bigger than a man's hand is to-day beginning to overshadow the whole European situation, and the Prime Minister, surrounded by a band of amateurs—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going quite away from the point.

Mr. MOSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, be so good as to tell me to what this additional £500 applies?

Dr. MURRAY: I want to ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman, but, before doing so, I should like to protest against the assumption of the hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), that it is only in third-class carriages that malevolent people travel. The only people I have discovered travelling in first-class carriages nowadays are burglars and war profiteers. I think it is some reflection on people who travel in third-class carriages to suggest that it is only these people who would be eavesdroppers, out for malevolent purposes, when great officials of State are travelling about. As a matter of fact, I think they would be more disregarded in third-class carriages than in first-class. The right
hon. Gentleman talked about the private secretaries of the Minister without Portfolio not in future coming within the ambit of this Vote. It has been suggested by some hon. Members, and by the anti-waste papers and other organs, that it is a habit in the Government that when there is no further use for an official in one Department, a job is found for him in another Department. I want to know whether the officials, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred as not coming within the ambit of this Vote, have been transferred to some other office. I do not know whether they have been, but the doubt has arisen through the words of the right hon. Gentleman that they would not come within the ambit of this Vote.

Major WHELER: I only want to reinforce the remarks made by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) with regard to travelling allowances. I have asked the Financial Secretary questions as to whether he has been making any change in the system under which a large number of officials are given first-class fares, taking into account the increased cost of travelling to-day. He gave me an answer last year that the question was under revision, and therefore I would ask him whether any system has been adopted under which fewer officials travel first class to-day than travelled, we will say, first class a year or two ago. We do feel in these days, when so many of us are travelling third class, that there should not be a very large number of civil servants travelling first class.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I want to ask for information before we decide whether we will support the reduction moved. Do I understand the salary of the Minister without Portfolio is included in the Estimate until March 31st?

Mr. BALDWIN: It was in the original Estimate for the whole year.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Minister without Portfolio ceased after 31st March?

Mr. BALDWIN: He ceased when he went to the War Office the other day.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: But is the office to be continued or discontinued? Because the Leader of the House stated last week that this office was going to be discon-
tinned. We are of opinion, as a Labour party, that as this office was started during the period of the War—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Although the Vote includes the salary and expenses of the office of the Minister without Portfolio, that is in the original Vote. I do not understand there is any money in the Supplementary Vote for that purpose, so that that does not arise.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Perhaps I can get the Minister to say whether this office is to be continued. If it is to be continued, then we shall protest against it, and go into the Division Lobby with the Mover of the Amendment, because we. think this office now ought to be dispensed with, and that we should endeavour, as much as we possibly can, to curtail expenditure in the interests of the taxpayers of the country.

Colonel NEWMAN: This is the first Estimate of many which we are going to discuss in which there occurs a footnote such as
A further sum of £3,700 has been provided in the Supplementary Votes for War Bonus (H.C. 148 and 219) in respect of charges falling on this Vote.
In nearly all the subsequent Votes we have that same footnote in very small letters. I do not think that is a satisfactory way of doing business. There is this War Bonus. I do not question its fairness or unfairness, but it amounts to an enormous sum in all. And we ought to have that particular sum in big type, the same as other amounts. If we had that we should have a full sum required of £7,200, and then the Committee would see, and perhaps a certain number of the general public would know, exactly what the Civil Service is costing us. Here we have £3,700 on the comparatively small sum of £35,525. I wonder how that sum of £3,700 is calculated. How can any Minister or any official tell that at the end of this month the War Bonus in this particular case will be exactly £3,700? This War Bonus is on a sliding scale, and varies according to the cost of living, from month to month.

Sir H. CRAIK: Not for the upper officials.

Colonel NEWMAN: The officials in this particular Ministry are not all upper officials. How can the official who made up that sum of £3,700 say that it will be
correct on the 31st March next? Then I should like to know exactly amongst how many of this staff the sum of £3,700 was distributed. If I can get a satisfactory answer now, I shall not have to raise the question again on other Estimates.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The point which my hon. and gallant Friend has raised is a very important one. As he says, this additional grant is not properly indicated on the Vote, and I hope that that suggestion will be borne in mind by my right hon. Friend in the preparation of these Estimates. These most important matters should be properly spaced out, and not placed in such small letters as to escape the attention of busy Members of the House who are not experts on Estimates. What really is the increase with which the Committee is faced? My right hon. Friend will recollect what happened one early morning between 1.30 and 2 o'clock when we let through the Committee stage of a very large supplementary War Bonus. This £3,700 is part of that which has been allocated to this Department, and therefore the actual increase which this Department has received in the current financial year beyond the £28,525 plus £2,000 travelling expenses. The Committee is now really putting its seal of approval to another £7,200, because that sum of £3,700 is an allocated portion of a large sum of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 granted to the Civil Service as a whole. Under those circumstances I want to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions. First of all, how much more is Sir Maurice Hankey getting, and, as a consequence of that, is the usual course to be adopted of all the other principal assistants and all the rest of them going up in proportion, and what will be the result, so far as it at present can be calculated, of allowing this increase to be placed upon this Department? How many more are going to get increases of salary, and how much are they going to get, and what, taking the last original Estimate, is the total? Those are questions which are worth answering. Never was it more necessary for the Government themselves and their servants to show an example to the country. Unemployment is rampant, and it is not confined to what are called the manual workers. It is rampant among the professional and the clerical classes, those who are called black-coated workers, and yet these increases are to be given to civil servants, who suffer
from no unemployment. I was abused in some Civil Service paper the other day simply because I pointed out, with regard to these increases to civil servants, that the House should exercise considerable care, because civil servants are in a special position. They do not bear the blast of unemployment. They are not in the open like the ordinary taxpayers are. I am not decrying their services in the least degree, and any additions which they ought to have they should by all means have. Many branches of the Civil Service have been grossly underpaid in the past. But for the abuse that one sometimes gets in these gazettes or magazines, it leave me quite cold. The factor which the Government ought to take into consideration is, not only are these things desirable, but are they necessary at the present moment, and cannot they be deferred until better times come? Everybody else has to do without. Turn where you like in all branches of ordinary civilian life, and you find that people have got to do without things until better times come. In these Supplementary Estimates, however, there is no recognition of the difference between the state of trade and business now and nine months ago. Everybody else has to cut down, and why should not all citizens bear their share, and why should not the Government lead the way? Sir Maurice Hankey may be worth £15,000 a year for all I know, I have no doubt he is a very useful civil servant, but why should not he and all the rest of them just bear with the present position until better times come and the country can afford to pay more?

Mr. STANTON: The same as Members of Parliament.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I agree with you. Speaking personally, I think one of the worst examples this House could show would be to add to the salaries or allowances of Members in the present state of affairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] I am entitled to express my opinion, and I do so. That is the view I hold, and which ever way hon. Members vote on this matter, they will have to be consistent when the question of their own allowances comes up. We are passing through a crisis of real magnitude, and we must give a lead in these matters, and
here is an occasion on which we are entitled to protest against the increase of these Supplementary Votes.

Sir H. CRAIK: I rise, as an old civil servant, to join in what has been said from the opposite Benches with regard to this Vote. I would prefer to discuss this matter upon a general Vote, but as it is we can only discuss it on these small items, applied to particular cases. The principle is involved, however, and I will tell the Committee what the principle is. It is not the case that the salaries which have hitherto been paid in the Civil Service continue on the same scale. In almost all cases the higher posts in the Civil Service have lately been paid on a scale altogether different from what was the case not many years ago, and in addition to that we are now asked to vote a bonus in every case—

Mr. BALDWIN: On a point of Order. There is not a penny of money in this Supplementary Estimate for bonus of any kind, and it seems to me that that topic is out of order. The question of war bonus can be discussed fully on the War Bonus Vote.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was listening to the right hon. Gentleman and I understood that his objection was to any increase in the salaries of any of the civil servants, and especially of any civil servants mentioned in this Supplementary Estimate, and in so far as that was his intention he would be in order, if, however, he wishes to refer to any expenditure on war bonus, that comes up on an Estimate on page 36. The right hon. Gentleman will see that the original Estimate was £11,850,000, and a Supplementary Estimate of £800,000 has been asked for war bonus, and that will be the time to discuss anything in connection with war bonus. It is only in so far as this Supplementary Estimate proposes to make provision for increased salaries and for private secretaries, etc., that discussion would be in order

Sir H. CRAIK: I bow to your decision, Sir Edwin. I was led into the course I was taking by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) which I thought you considered in order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: He did not refer, as I understand, to war bonus.

Sir D. MACLEAN: No, I was not referring to war bonus.

Sir H. CRAIK: Then I shall raise the question on the Vote for war bonuses.

Major C. LOWTHER: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) will go to a Division, because I think what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles said in a previous Supplementary Estimate is very true in regard to this one also. The Secretary for the Treasury expressed painful anxiety to cut down these travelling expenses. He said they caused him considerable anxiety. The sum itself is not enormous, as sums go in these days, but it is only by rigorously looking after these small amounts that we can get into a proper atmosphere of economy again. If we are careful of the pence the pounds can take care of themselves, and it is necessary that we should get into that economical frame of mind. Not so long ago railway wages were discussed and a very wise principle was laid down, that the increases should be dependent upon the cost of living. At the present moment the cost of living is on the decrease and I think civil servants might set a good example by realising that fact and not pressing claims at the present moment for increases of salary. They might at least wait until the country is in a more stable financial situation. It is in order to reinforce the protest which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baldwin) makes very strongly to the spending Departments that I shall support the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the Lobby.

Mr. MILLS: After the Debate on the Air Ministry Estimate yesterday involving a sum of nearly £24,000,000, when the speakers were not by any means bitter in their criticism of the expenditure, I cannot help thinking that to-night we are rather in the position of straining at the gnat after having digested the camel somewhat easily. But I join issue with the Secretary to the Treasury on the same grounds as the hon. Member who represents Labour on the Front Bench. We object to the continuance of an office which has no longer—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled that out of order, and I cannot allow it to be re-opened now.

Mr. MILLS: I only hope that in the reply the Secretary to the Treasury will give us some idea as to whether or no the statement of the Leader of the House is to be acted on in good faith—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not raise again a point which has already been ruled out of order.

Mr. MILLS: If I am again out of order I will try again and see if I am more lucky this time. If we are to be confined to travelling expenses, the question as regards first and third class expenses does not interest us much, because the third-class carriages on some lines are very much better than the first-class on others. The real point, after all, is the principle of allowing in the mass the increased allowances for travelling, for, if we are to judge by the results, there appears to be no justification whatever for it. There have been no results worthy of the name, and it is because we go from conference to conference, and yet the mess appears to be greater than ever, that I, for one, will support the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

Mr. ACLAND: I would like to give my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Baldwin) a ray of encouragement, because I am perfectly certain his is a genuine desire to cut down these very large bills for travelling expenses which he finds in all Departments. I believe that if approached in the proper way a very large proportion of the civil servants would consent to have the class in which they are entitled to travel altered from first to third. I can give my right hon. Friend a small personal experience in this matter. The other day I was out, in my capacity as a Forestry Commissioner, inspecting an estate which we wanted to buy. We went 20 or 30 miles by train after doing our day's work. I automatically took a third-class ticket, but the two officials, the district officer and the divisional officer, with whom I was travelling, took first-class tickets, also quite automatically, and I had to change from the third to the first class in order to travel with them, which I did not like at all, because I could not afford it. Then we got into talk about this subject. They said they would be perfectly happy to travel third class in future if the same regulation applied to officers of similar
grade in other Departments. They realised that the country could not be expected to afford first-class travel for officers of that grade. They said, "Of course it is more comfortable to be able to write your reports in a first-class carriage," and no doubt that is why all inspectors have the right to travel first, but, they added, "We realise that although it may mean a little discomfort we must write our reports at home instead of in the train." I think my right hon. Friend will find a real disposition to welcome a definite revision of the rules as to the class by which a man is entitled to travel.
8.0 P.M.
There is one other point I wanted to talk about, but I will not. It is of course the question that the position and authority of the Foreign Office is constantly undermined by operations of persons in this Department who really make it impossible for the Foreign Office to do their work in a proper and efficient manner as they used to do before offices of this kind were born or thought of.

Mr. STANTON: I just want to state that as one who felt he had a grievance some time ago and who happened to be upon the Committee dealing with the salaries of Members, and having gone into the whole matter and fought it right through until we had a majority on that Committee, we thought, looking around and knowing what was going on outside in the country, realising that hundreds of thousands of men who risked their all at the front were to-day out of work and doing very badly, we should endeavour to set a good example, although we felt we were entitled to something. Is that good example to be lost on this Committee and on these higher officials? I do not question the amount of work they do, but as an old trade unionist, and as one fairly able to judge what is fair between one mind and another according to services rendered, I hardly think that this House takes that serious view of the position that it should. I fail to see why this amount should be voted and voted so readily to this Minister or to any Minister. With regard to the question of first-class travelling, I suppose everyone requires convenience. I can understand Government officials demanding necessary convenience when they travel,
but what is good enough for one man who is British is good enough for another. Arrangements could be made for these people to travel, but I do not know that an example of that kind has been set even from the other side of the Committee. Although this amount is not so very great it is not so very small, and, at any rate, it demands the consideration of everybody. I do not think it is fair or right that these people should ignore what has been done and the sacrifices that have been made by certain Members of this House, and not a small number of them in regard to their salaries. I do not think it is fair, and I shall go into the Lobby and back up the people who are for economy on this question, although I am not frightened or scared at the "Daily Mail." I shall vote as I think fit without fear of being black-listed or listed in any other way. I do not think it is fair that these increases should be granted, and that there should be this wanton extravagance in official circles when other people are trying to set some example to try and get this old country back into its former position.

Mr. SPENCER: I did not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman when he was dealing with the salary of Sir Maurice Hankey. He said it had been increased from £2,000 to £3,000 by a Committee presided over by the right hon. Member for Paisley, and he went on to say that £1,100 of this £3,000 was due to that increase. I fail to see how the increase of £1,000 is going to take £1,100. If it is for Sir Maurice himself and part of his staff, that alters the whole situation. The right hon. Gentleman did not make that clear, but he may do so later on. I have only two criticisms to make. I feel disposed to vote against another Supplementary Estimate on the ground of absence of adequate information. I am thoroughly convinced that very few Members of this House, unless they have had a very lengthy experience, are in a position to judge exactly what is involved in these Supplementary Estimates. One hon. Member of the Front Bench said that these sums are not enormous. Enormity is purely a question of relationship. I do not know whether these sums are enormous or not. If I take a ticket at Whitehall and they charge me a shilling instead of 1½d., the question of relationship is not large in relation to £300 or £400, but it is a very great sum
indeed in relation to 1½d. Upon this Supplementary Vote we have no information whatever, and one certainly is not in the position to decide whether these sums are fair or not. I should have thought it would have been advisable to have said, in the first place, how many extra conferences have been held; neither have we been informed how many of the staff it is essential should travel to these conferences. I do not know whether this extra £500 covers the travelling expenses of Cabinet Ministers or whether it is confined strictly to the staff who go along with them. Probably that information might be given later on. There is a further point, and it is this. I think it is very essential indeed in regard to these Estimates that we should have some standard by which we might be guided. It might be useful to this House on questions of this kind to state exactly what the 1914 standard was. If we had a standard of comparison of that kind we might be able to judge, using our own imagination in the light of present-day circumstances, whether the charges were reasonable or not. But we have nothing of the kind, and it seems to me that £500 is a very large expense for what I should conceive to he the staff of the Cabinet. The sum involved, £2,500, would procure at least 30 tickets for first-class travelling between London and the Midlands for a whole year. From that point of view it does not seem that as far as travelling is concerned the extra sum of £500 is a small sum. It seems to me an enormous sum. I think the right hon. Gentleman should give us some further information, and I make the suggestion that on all these Supplementary Estimates we should have far more information than hitherto has been given. One would have thought that Friday would have taught the Government a lesson as far as information is concerned, but the lesson of Friday seems to have been lost on the minds of Ministers.

Mr. BRIANT: I regret it is not possible by some omnibus Resolution of this House to lay down a definite rule with regard to this question. In my opinion, it is time to do away with this remnant of snobbishness that, somehow or other, classes have to be separated. Although this matter is a comparatively small one, I hope this House will raise its protest against a certain class of officers taking steps to separate themselves from others.
I know that many public bodies are beginning to set an example which the House might well follow. They are simply giving third class fares, and anybody whose dignity and importance is such as not to allow him to mix with his fellows is allowed to travel first class provided he pays the difference himself. Even the Colonial Secretary himself is well content to travel by the ordinary boat instead of taking a battleship, and if the Colonial Secretary is not to have the pomp and circumstance to which he is accustomed, and which he so much enjoys, I think the ordinary civil servant should be prepared to accept a lower class. Most of us have found it necessary, even if we travelled second class before, to take third class tickets now. Even if we travelled first class, we are now well content to travel third class as well, and what is good enough for Members of this House is good enough for officers of the Civil Service. We have no right to grant to the man who has the happy privilege of being a direct-paid servant of the Government facilities which we will not allow ourselves, and therefore I shall vote for the Amendment.

Mr. BALDWIN: I think I can allay the anxiety of my two hon. Friends who spoke last. These figures for travelling expenses include travelling and all charges of subsistence at hotels, or wherever the officers may be during their absence on that travelling. With regard to the number of Cabinet officers, I should like to assure the Committee that the usual number who travel to these conferences is four. They are all high and confidential officers, and it is essential for the conduct of business that they should all travel together and keep in touch with the Ministers throughout their journey. When you have regard to the fact that conferences have been held, two in Paris, one at Lucerne, one at Boulogne, one at Brussels and Spa, and two to meet our Allies at Lympne, I do not think these figures are excessive.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does this £500 cover the whole of the extra expenditure of the extra conferences?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, that is so.

Sir W. BARTON: Does this entirely cover these expenses?

Mr. BALDWIN: Together with the money voted in the original Estimate for Cabinet officers to travel to these conferences. There were one or two questions raised which I ought to touch upon. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) raised a point which is really a question of policy, with which I cannot deal. The question was, how far the policy of holding these conferences interferes with the kind of work the Foreign Office used to do? That matter cannot be discussed on this Vote, though it is a proper subject on other occasions. Of course, the representatives of the Foreign Office attend in their official capacity all these conferences to which I have alluded. I do not think there is any doubt in the mind of the Committee as to what I said about the Minister without Portfolio. With regard to whatever may happen next year, I would remind the Committee that the Vote on Account will shortly be taken for the Civil Service. The Vote for the Cabinet Offices will appear there, and if the question be asked then as to whether any provision is to be made for the Minister without Portfolio, that question will be fully answered. I do

not think there is any further point for me to deal with, and I hope the Committee will now come to a decision.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Am I to understand that this post is not filled at the present moment?

Mr. BALDWIN: No, it is not.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Surely, there will be some saving in the salary for about three months?

Mr. BALDWIN: Not so much as that, but there will be a saving.

Sir D. MACLEAN: What is the salary of Sir Maurice Hankey and what effect will that have on his subordinate staff?

Mr. BALDWIN: I said the first time I spoke on the subject that his salary had been raised from £2,000 to £3,000. If my recollection serves me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a long answer to a question on these high-grade salaries in the House during the present Session.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £500, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 158.

Division No. 15.]
AYES.
[8.20 p.m.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Grundy, T. W.
Rendall, Athelstan


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Royce, William Stapleton.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Irving, Dan
Spencer, George A.


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stanton, Charles B.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Swan, J. E.


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Lawson, John J.
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lynn, William
Wignall, James


Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Williams, Ancurin (Durham, Consett)


Glanville, Harold James
Mills, John Edmund
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Mosley, Oswald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Myers, Thomas
Mr. G. Thorne and Dr. Murray.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Coote, William (Tyrone, South)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Briggs, Harold
Cope, Major Wm.


Amery, Lieut. Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Britton, G. B.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Armitage, Robert
Bruton, Sir James
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)


Atkey, A. R.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Curzon, Commander Viscount


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Campbell, J. D. G.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Carr, W. Theodore
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)


Barnston, Major Harry
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Churchman. Sir Arthur
Dockrell, Sir Maurice


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Clough, Robert
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Blair, Sir Reginald
Coats, Sir Stuart
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.


Fildes, Henry
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Foreman, Sir Henry
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Renwick, George


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Forrest, Walter
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lloyd, George Butler
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Gange, E. Stanley
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lorden, John William
Rodger, A. K.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Lort-Willlams, J.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Lynn, R. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel sir Henry
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Greer, Harry
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Gregory, Holman
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Guest, Major O. (Lelc, Loughboro')
Magnus, Sir Philip
Taylor, J.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Hallwood, Augustine
Marriott, John Arthur Ransoms
Vickers, Douglas


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Matthews, David
Waddington, R.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Moles, Thomas
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Waring, Major Walter


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Hills, Major John Waller
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Morris, Richard
Weston, Colonel John W.


Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n.W.)
Morrison, Hugh
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Murchison, C. K.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W.
Wise, Frederick


Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Parry, Lieut-Colonel Thomas Henry
Woolcock, William James U.


Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Perring, William George
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Jephcott, A. R.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Johnson, Sir Stanley
Purchase, H. G.



Johnstone, Joseph
Randies, Sir John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rankin, Captain James S.
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel



Question put, and agreed to.

TREASURY AXD SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, including Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to inquire about the banking operations in which the Government have been engaged in Ireland in connection with their examination of banking accounts. I understand that experts have been sent over to Ireland to examine accounts, which the banks have been forced to disclose, and that they have attached the accounts of certain persons who are obnoxious to the Government. I take it that that is the explanation of this Supplementary Estimate. The original amount obtained for the Estimate was £1,600. This Supplementary Estimate practically doubles it, and I think it needs a good deal of explanation. I am not at all surprised at the amount of the Estimate. Here we have the case of the Government objecting to the political
opinions of certain persons. There is no question of criminality whatever, because gunmen who are on the run in Ireland certainly have no banking accounts. These are ordinary citizens who are supposed to be objectionable to the Government politically. The Government has persecuted them by taking their banking accounts and forcing the bank managers to disclose those accounts, a very pretty example of liberty and freedom in this year of Grace, 1921. If my explanation is correct, I am afraid I shall have to move to reduce the Vote. But I will wait until I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. I hope he will be able to remove my fears on this point. At any rate, the item is one which requires full explanation, and I would like to know when we are going to get to the bottom on the extra Government expenditure in Ireland. It is cropping up on Vote after Vote and we find we are being mulcted in substantial sums on account of the state of affairs in that country. In regard to other Votes there has been a marked lack of candour and a great meagreness of information supplied by Ministers. I hope we shall have fuller explanations on this Estimate, and I think we might have had one of the numerous Members of the Irish Office here to give it to us.

Mr. MOSLEY: If the suggestions of my hon. and gallant Friend as to the reason for this Supplementary Estimate are well founded, I trust we shall have a full explanation of the expenditure. I would like to make a few remarks on Item K: "Increase in temporary staff in excess of number provided for in original Estimate and cost for substitution of male for female staff." This is an allowance for temporary clerical assistance. I quite appreciate the force of the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion regarding the necessity of finding employment for ex-service men. But that would only apply to cases where the employment is of a permanent character. Apparently, in this case, the employment is temporary, and it appears to me to be a great waste of money to go to the trouble and expense of training men to take the place of these women for work of a purely temporary character. Where the employment is temporary it is not necessary surely to train men to take the place of women. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some idea of the nature of the work for which male staff is to be substituted for female, and will indicate for what time their services are likely to be required.

Captain Viscount CURZON: I have received lately many letters from both male and female constituents of mine, who are very anxious on the subject of the policy with regard to male and female staffs, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what exactly is the policy of the Government with regard to the substitution of male for female labour. As an ex-service man, I have every sympathy with ex-service men, and with the natural desire of everyone to see that they are given every possible opportunity for employment. I am told, however, that in some cases efficient female clerks are being superseded by ex-service men who, before the War, were not employed on clerical duties, and who are now not nearly as efficient as the female staffs for which they are substituted. In many cases the ex-service man is one who comes with all the glamour attaching to the overseas service; but in other cases, I fear, the ex-service men appointed to Government Departments have been men who never went overseas at all. I feel certain that the bulk of the ex-service men in this
country, provided that they can be assured that those ex-service men who are appointed in substitution for female labour in Government offices have served overseas, would have nothing to say on the subject; but I do not think that the ex-service men themselves desire that men who have merely enjoyed comfortable billets in England during the whole of the War should be used to replace highly efficient female labour in the various Ministries. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some explanation of the policy.

Mr. BALDWIN: This Vote includes two items—one an additional sum for travelling and incidental expenses, the other an increase in the salaries, wages and allowances of the Paymaster-General's office. With regard to travelling and incidental expenses (Item 13), there are three directions in which, daring the year, greater expenditure has arisen than was anticipated when the original Estimate was prepared. First of all, as has been mentioned, three members of our staff are working in Dublin. They are not employed in such exciting and dramatic work as was sketched by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), but it was felt by the present Chief Secretary that the office in Dublin required some fresh blood in the way of highly trained civil servants, who had had more experience than some of those civil servants who had been working on the other side of the Channel. To strengthen his office, therefore, we lent from the Treasury three very competent civil servants. Apart from the strengthening of the office in Dublin, it is a great advantage, in the present circumstances in Ireland, that we should have our own representatives in the office there who can advise us in London with first-hand knowledge. We are now, more than we have in the past, inspecting staffs, and we find that by doing so we are often able, by advice and investigation, to improve the efficiency, and sometimes, indeed, to effect economies in administration.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that in Ireland alone?

Mr. BALDWIN: No, anywhere. Further, we have had to supply expert financial help on the Commissions that have met on the Continent, when
financial business has been discussed. During the Conference at Spa last December we had some of our chief financial men employed there for some time while that Conference lasted.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Are the expenses of going to Spa included in this Vote?

Mr. BALDWIN: The expenses of the men whom we sent from the Treasury, but nothing else. With regard to Item K, which relates to the Paymaster-General's office, I was rather surprised myself, when I first examined the Estimate, to find that it had been necessary to increase the staff in that office. I ascertained the reason, however, and I think that the Committee, when they hear it, will understand as well as I did the necessity for the increase. It is not a large increase; it is 32. The hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) asked if the work is likely to be of a temporary nature. I am afraid that a good deal of it will last for some time. The increase of work has been caused largely by the complexities of pension work. All the pension warrants come into that office for checking against the original lists, and that takes a great deal of time. In addition, the revision of the Income Tax has led to a great deal more checking in that office, because all payments made have to be examined in order to see that the tax allowed is what it should be. A great deal of that work must, I am afraid, continue for some time, although it may, of course, be possible, with further experience, to devise methods of reducing the staff presently; but in the current year this is the least number they have found competent to deal with the work. The increase of numbers has taken place almost entirely in the temporary staff. The permanent men remain as they were a year ago. There is one more permanent woman. There are seven fewer temporary women and 38 more temporary men. That makes a net increase on the year of 32. I owe an apology to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson). He is quite correct in what he pointed out. What I stated is also correct, that we find, owing to these causes, the expenses have been greater than we anticipated, but the amount that is down here is for Ireland, and I am very glad to be corrected in the statement I made about Spa. I was quite under the
impression that the cost of our delegates to Spa came on this Vote. I was in error, and I apologise for having made the statement.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to ask a question on K. I understand the extra clerical assistance in connection with certain pension cases is the checking of the work of the Minister of Pensions, or is it the pensions of civil servants?

Mr. BALDWIN: The actual payment is made through the Paymaster-General's office, I understand, and when the pay warrants come in they have to be checked against the authority that he has from the issuing office to make the payments.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: There is another question in connection with the complexity of the Income Tax. Owing to the differences in the Income Tax forms and so on, it has been necessary to have a slightly larger staff.

Mr. BALDWIN: It is impossible to say exactly what the additional work will be.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is more complex, and therefore it has been necessary to bring in an extra staff. I think these are temporary tax clerks who have been appointed to do the work and they are a class in whom I am particularly interested. At present the tax clerks are in a state of great distress of mind.

Mr. BALDWIN: They are not tax clerks in any sense of the word. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will have an Opportunity of raising his point on the Inland Revenue Vote.

Mr. LAWSON: In regard to Item B, as far as I understand the explanation we got of the doubling of the cost of the original Estimate was that we wanted new blood in the Treasury Department at Dublin. I do not really know what that means. Various other phrases were used, but no detailed answer was given as to the doubling of the cost. It is for the location of a section of the Treasury Staff and Investigation Staff at Dublin. I suppose that will be the result of the improved state of things generally in Ireland. I should like to have some real explanation, because the right hon. Gentleman contented himself with using phrases instead of giving a real explanation.

Mr. G. THORNE: I should like it made perfectly clear that, as I understand from the right hon. Gentleman s later explanation, the £1,500 is confined to what took place in Ireland, and has nothing whatever to do with Spa, so that we may have it clear on the records.

Mr. BALDWIN indicated assent.

Mr. THORNE: Then I do not think the right hon. Gentleman answered my hon. Friend behind me in regard to K. I understand the net increase at Spa is 32. My hon. Friend asked why, as it is a temporary staff, you could not be content with allowing it to be left to the women's staff instead of bringing in a much more expensive staff of males for a temporary purpose.

Viscount CURZON: My right hon. Friend did not answer a word of what I said. It may be better to raise it upon a subsequent Vote and if so I shall be delighted to do so, but I should like to get some indication of what the policy of the Government is in regard to the general question of the substitution of male for female labour.

Mr. BALDWIN: A question of policy of that kind cannot arise on this Vote. What is being done in regard to substitution is being done on the recommendations of a Committee which was set up with the knowledge of this House under the chairmanship of Lord Lytton. It is quite true that there are some difficulties in practice, and I suggest to him that an opportunity for raising the whole question, and asking what is being done with regard to that work of substitution, might very well be taken on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY: No doubt my right hon. Friend is right, and he cannot answer whether or not it is the policy of the Cabinet to substitute male for female labour, but it is in the power of the Committee to reject a Vote which substitutes male for female labour if they think that is a mistaken thing to do. In the last Vote there was a substitution of male for female labour. I did not say anything about it because I did not want to make too many points, but if on every Supplementary Vote we are going to substitute male for female labour, the question will arise whether or not we ought not to say, "It may or may not be right, but until we have had a declara-
tion from the Government on this point we will not pass the Vote." I have always been a very strong opponent of female suffrage. I have fought it to the best of my ability for a great number of years, and I shall fight it still, and I am sorry it was ever introduced, and still more sorry that we have another sex in this House. I only instance that to show my prejudice, that I am not in favour of women as against men, but on the other hand I think we ought to draw the line somewhere, and I really do not think we are justified in turning women wholesale out of their employment, and I suggest to the Committee, if there are any other Supplementary Votes in which this occurs that it might be advisable to refuse to grant them. Further, I should like to ask this question. There is again in this Vote a sum of £52,050 for war bonus. I know this is the ordinary form of Estimate. Where a charge which should be on one Vote is borne on another, attention is drawn to it in this way by a foot-note. I make, no objection to that, but I should like to know how it is that when the Estimate is only for £5,000, we find that in another Vote there is an increased Estimate for £53,000 for war bonus?

Mr. BALDWIN: The right hon. Baronet is not quite right. If he will read the note in small type, he will see that the total of the original Estimate for Treasury and Subordinate Departments was £313,000, so that the figure which he has read out is not quite so large an increase as he suggests.

Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend means that the increase is on an original Vote of £313,000, so that it is only an increase of 20 per cent, or 18 per cent. What I mean was that here we are asked for a Supplementary Estimate for £5,000, and hon. Members may think that they are sanctioning a Supplementary Vote to the Government for £5,000, but what they are really doing is granting a Supplementary Vote for £53,000.

Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend is wrong there. With regard to the war bonus, I have had the sum inserted here, because the war bonus has up to now been presented in one single Estimate. Next year the proper charge will appear under the heading of each Vote. This lasts only for this year. We are only
voting an additional £5,000. The bulk of the war bonus has already been voted by this House, but there remains a final Supplementary Estimate for war bonus which we shall take in due course, and on which the House will be asked to express its opinion.

Sir F. BANBURY: The Supplementary Estimate for war bonus will be taken later on, and we can have a discussion then?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, a full discussion.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that in future the Estimates will be prepared in a different way.

Mr. BALDWIN: The Estimates for next year are being prepared so that the war bonus will appear under respective heads. During the current year, in order to save presenting about 100 or 150 Supplementary Estimates, we had the whole bonus for all the Departments put into one Vote, except in a few cases where Departments were having Supplementary Estimates on other matters.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will not say anything more now, except to congratulate him on his astuteness whereby he passes in one Vote 150 Votes, and saved perhaps 150 Divisions.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: We are entitled to a little more explanation as to the details of Item (B). The right hon. Gentleman said that that was caused by the fact that the Chief Secretary had asked for assistance from the Treasury. One can well understand that the Chief Secretary would require some additional assistance from the Treasury in these days, and no one would complain of the Treasury lending him that assistance; but that assistance means, apparently, the loan of three officials who are now in Dublin. So far as I can gather, that is only going to cost the Treasury, at the outside, three return fares from London to Dublin, and it does not go nearly far enough to account for the additional £1,500. The rest of the £1,500 is taken up by staff investigation. There is no suggestion that any of these officials are getting more in the way of salary. How is it that these investigations are going to cost so much money? What are they, and why do they cost money? It must be a big investigation to cost nearly £1,500.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. BALDWIN: By far the largest amount under this Sub-head (B) is for Civil servants belonging to the Treasury, who are in Dublin. Where I think my hon. Friend has been led into an error is that he does not realise that the phrase "Travelling and incidental expenses" covers more than the actual purchase of tickets. It includes subsistence allowances for the men who have to live in Dublin for the temporary period during which they may be employed, while at the same time their own homes and families are in England. The subsistence is a considerably larger item than the travelling allowance. It is impossible to say at any given time how much will be expended in travelling, because sometimes it is necessary for journeys to be made to London where there is an important matter for decision. The Treasury has always had one representative in Dublin watching the financial business of that country, and acting as our watchdog, and at a time like the present, when, owing to causes which we cannot discuss on this Vote, there is necessity for a good deal more expenditure in Ireland, it is of very great importance that we should have three of our trained men to watch this expenditure, and to exercise whatever control may be practicable. We believe that having them there will be productive of as much economy as we could possibly get in the circumstances.

Mr. SPENCER: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us what is the amount of the subsistence allowance. What is the word "allowance" intended to cover. I understand that it does not refer to war bonus?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is the usual phrase. "allowance" means subsistence allowance, which is the money given to anyone who is travelling on business of this kind. The subsistence allowance paid in Dublin is 13s. 4d. a day for those residing outside Dublin Castle and 10s. 6d. a day for those who are lodged inside Dublin Castle.

Mr. SPENCER: The right hon. Gentleman is rather confusing my mind. My hon. and Gallant Friend says that travelling and incidental expenses are the cost of travelling and hotels. Then he goes on to say that allowance also covers subsistence allowance. If so it is very unfortunate that one definite charge should be covered in two ways. It would
be far better if a charge of this character were covered in one way than in two. I thought the word "allowance" referred to war bonus.

Mr. RAWLINON: I do not share the difficulty of the hon. Member who has just sat down. The word "allowance" comes under K, and travelling and incidental expenses come under B. What the Financial Secretary says is perfectly clear. Whether it is right or not is another matter. The Treasury thought it advisable to send three experts to Dublin to assist the gentleman who is always there and has done most excellent work on behalf of the Treasury. What is new to me is that that should not appear on the Irish Vote.

Mr. BALDWIN: This is the case of three officers who are loaned for this temporary work which does not clash with the work done by the official to whom my hon. and learned Friend refers.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Still they went to assist the official who was there, and so it ought to appear on the Irish Vote. It has got to come on one Vote or the other, and it does not make much difference under which Vote it comes. As to the increase in K, we find that there are 32 extra officials in the Paymaster-General's office. Their salary does not seem exorbitant. I understand they have been there a considerable period, and so far they have not received more than £100 each, though that may grow in future. But I am dissatisfied with the lack of explanation as to why 32 new officials are needed there. One cannot help feeling that there ought to be a certain amount of supervision there to necessitate that. As an example, I may refer to the cheque sent out to each Member each quarter from the Postmaster-General which we get from the Fee Office here. That was sent to me in the ordinary way. My initials are J.F.P. There is no other person of my name in the House. The cheque was endorsed by me, and paid into the Central Bank in the ordinary way. It was returned from the Paymaster-General's Office on the ground that the signature of the Member did not appear on it. It was sent back by me, and passed through my bank and returned again. The Fee Office said they could not understand it. At last it turned out that in the list of Members sent by the Fee Office
they simply sent my name as J., and I signed it as J.F.P. An office in which there could be such an amount of waste of time over such a small matter is one in which more supervision ought to be exercised. I am not satisfied from what has been said to-day that there is any necessity for an increase of staff in Government offices. I have given that as an example. I do not know what became of the gentleman who caused all that trouble in that particular case. I suppose that he has been promoted, because he scored to a certain extent over another Department. There is no case for any increase in the Departments at the present time when the staffs should be cut down rather than enlarged.

COLONIAL OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £250,625, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid and other Expenses connected with Oversea Settlement.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut. - Colonel Amery): The Committee may desire a brief explanation of the reasons for this Supplementary Estimate. Hon. Members will notice that under the first heading "Oversea Settlement Scheme," the revised Estimate is £195,000 higher than the original Estimate of £500,000. That increase falls into two parts £150,000 increase is in respect of free passages to ex-service men. £45,000 is in respect of free passages to other than ex-service men. Any sort of Estimate approaching accuracy with regard to free passages for ex-service men was by the nature of the case impossible. The Government made an offer to such ex-service men who wished to go to different parts of the Empire and fulfilled certain conditions. The number of such men would depend on the other facilities offered by the Government of this country, and on the state of employment in this country. Apart from their wishes the possibility of their going oversea depended upon the conditions in the various Dominions, the extent to which the various Dominion Governments had cleared up the work of settling their own ex-service men and also upon the economic
conditions prevailing in any particular Dominion. Lastly the number which might go would also depend upon the shipping available. Consequently when the Estimates had to be presented there was no possibility of estimating with any approach to accuracy the total amount that might be required in the year. As far as the Estimate could be based on the cost of oversea settlement during the previous year we felt that the sum would not be less than £500,000. Whether it would be a little more or several hundred thousands more it was quite impossible to say. The Committee will agree that it would have been a bad Estimate to allow for a very large sum which might not be required. For those reasons only, the figure of £500,000 was put down. As a matter of fact 7,000 more ex-service men and their dependants have gone, and the total figure has been £650,000. A Supplementary Estimate was therefore inevitable from the nature of the case because an accurate estimate was not humanly possible.
The £45,000, and the £55,000 which appears under C3, are due to an entirely new fact, and that is the very serious stage in the conditions of trade and employment which arose during the closing month of the year. As hon. Members know, that matter was very fully investigated by a Committee of the Cabinet, and their conclusions, involving very substantial measures of relief for unemployment, have already been before the House. Among those measures a small item, relatively speaking, is this assistance, either in the way of free passage or in the way of an allowance for outfit, clothing, and so on, or landing money for men and women who did not come within the scope of the ex-service scheme, but who were in need of assistance, and for one reason or another were able to show that they had employment or the prospect of doing well awaiting them in the Dominions.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In the Crown Colonies?

Lieut.-Golonel AMERY: In some cases in the Crown Colonies. Similar assistance had been given for the last two years or eighteen months out of money provided by the National Relief Fund. Therefore, all the machinery existed for sifting cases and seeing whether those who had a good opportunity awaiting them in Canada,
Australia, or wherever it might be, were debarred from taking up that opportunity by the fact either that they could not pay the passage or, if they could pay the passage, that they needed the necessary outfit of clothing for their families and themselves. We came to the conclusion that that was a form of assistance very beneficial to the individuals concerned, and, from the point of view of the State, very economical. In many cases a very few pounds were sufficient to bridge the gap between people living in a state of unemployment and great difficulty here and settlement and an assured future on the other side. In all this there can be no question of thinking that immediate unemployment on a large scale can be relieved by measures of settlement overseas. There is no question of dumping people on the Dominions because they are unemployed. The Dominions have their own unemployment problem, very serious in some cases. The number and the class of people whom they can take are very limited. Therefore it would be a great mistake to encourage the idea that when you have a great crisis of unemployment you can solve it off-hand by telling people to go to the Dominions. But it is also true, undoubtedly, that there is a considerable number of openings in the Dominions for certain classes of people, and among those who are unemployed or in precarious employment here there is always a certain number for whom actual openings may exist overseas. This small grant is given only after careful investigation into each individual case, first of all by the Overseas Settlement Committees of the Treasury, and, secondly, by representatives of the Dominions concerned. No person can get assistance who is not previously passed by a representative of the Dominion to which he wishes to go as a desirable settler and one reasonably assured of employment on the other side. On those conditions we have these very limited grants to give. That explains the sum of £45,000 under C.1 and the sum of £55,000 under C.3.
The remaining item is £625 for the Society for the Overseas Settlement of British Women. In regard to the very important subject of the migration of women, a matter that requires great care and consideration of the interests of individuals and their protection on the journey, and special correspondence to
ensure the settler being welcomed on the other side, we came to the conclusion two years ago that on the whole that work was better done by voluntary agency than by a Government Department, more particularly as the corresponding work is being done in Canada, with Government assistance, by a combination of the various women's organisations in Canada. After many months we were able to get most of the women's organisations interested in oversea settlement together into a single society, and that society has done very valuable and useful work. The grant of £5,000 a year we propose to increase to £7,500. From all the information which reaches me the women selected and passed have done well. The society-has also done a work not less valuable in warning those who are not suitable for settlement overseas that they should not go and in discouraging girls who might be tempted to emigrate too readily by advertisements and various forms of propaganda. The society has done this very useful work, and the work is now gradually expanding all over the country. There is no question of setting up a network of separate organisations. In co-operation with the Ministry of Labour, the various local interviewing committees at provincial centres are co-opting women with special knowledge of the problem, so that when women come to them for advice and guidance the Committee can give them good advice and tell them to go or not to go, and can make sure that if they do go they are given every chance of being looked after on the journey. To 260 committees up and down the country these advisory members have been added, and the work of looking after these people has necessitated a certain amount of extra correspondence and travelling. We felt we were fully justified, after the experience of the last year or so, in increasing the grant to the Society for the Overseas Settlement of Women from £5,000 to £7,500. That is all I need say to make clear the main points of the Supplementary Estimates. I can deal later with other points raised by hon. Members.

Mr. T. THOMSON: In introducing this Supplementary Estimate the right hon. Gentleman used the words, "this quarter of a million of money was very economically spent in seeking to
solve, in a measure, the question of unemployment." I should like to ask the Committee to consider whether it is true economy to follow the expenditure which he has just outlined; whether there is not another side to the question; whether, by over-spending to this large extent of £250,000, there is not a false economy in depriving the country of some of the best of its manhood and womanhood; and whether it would not be wiser to have kept within the original Estimate which he outlined when submitting these Estimates in the first place, rather than by overspending to this extent. I would suggest that this money which has been so expended would have been more economically spent if it had been devoted to developing the home land and seeking to keep at home some of the best manhood and womanhood of our nation. Surely there never was a time when the country was in greater need of good men and good women, the best of the national stock, at a time when the manhood of the country has been depleted by the ravages of the recent War. The Committee have reason to complain that the money originally voted has been over-spent to this huge extent, thereby depleting the manhood of the nation so much more than was otherwise necessary. It may be an easy policy, for the time being, to reduce the number of men on your Labour Exchanges as being out of work by shipping them off to the Colonies, but it would have been a far safer policy to have spent this money, or even twice the amount, in developing home resources. The man who does well abroad will do well here, but the wasters, if there are many who have been sent overseas, will be no bigger success in the Colonies than they would have been here. At the present time it is a wrong policy, fundamentally, to get rid of our men and our women. I do not want to go into the broad principle of the case; that might not be quite in order, but I would suggest that at a time when the statistics of the health of the nation show that our manhood is depreciating and that there are children at home not up to the proper physique, it is not right to send the, best of our womenfolk abroad. We want to retain them in this country and to develop our home resources, and in that way make this land of ours one fit for those who have
made such sacrifices for us. It is entirely a wrong and a vicious principle, and the Committee should resist this tendency of the Government to overspend to the extent of £250,000 in sending abroad those who could do so much better by finding work here and in developing the homeland.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I wish to protest at the earliest possible moment against the spirit, the tone and the whole out-look of the hon. Member who has just sat down. He seems to think that if British citizens leave this country for the great lands of Canada and Australia you are getting rid of them. We are doing no such thing, and the whole talk about shifting them off to the Colonies and of their making no bigger success out in the new lands of the Empire cornea from a narrow particularism, a narrow nationalism, a narrow counting of noses in this country which is the end of the British Empire. It is utterly hopeless. If there is one thing encouraging it is that our manhood and womanhood have still got some of that pioneer spirit about them, and are anxious and willing to go out to the wilds and the waste spaces of the earth and to spread our civilisation, and our ideas. If there is one Vote which the Committee ought unanimously to support, it is this particular Vote. I cannot speak too strongly on this point. Take the womanhood question. The hon. Member said we were getting rid of our womanhood. Take the position in Australia and Canada, and other parts of the British Empire. You have there an excess of males over females, while in this country you have between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 more women than men. The women are wanted by our brothers and sisters overseas. All this idea that you have got to conserve the manhood resources of this island is a Prussian idea. It was the old German idea, the idea of State power in a narrow circumscribed area. In my view, it is utterly wrong. If they go to Canada, to Australia, or to any part of the Empire they remain British citizens, they are one with us, one in every way and in every manner.
There are one or two points on the Vote which I wish to raise in detail. The first is in connection with the £45,000 for free passages to others than ex-service men and the £55,000 advanced in grants to other than ex-service men, which is
recoverable. As I understand that, Parliament never assented to these grants when this was being given to ex-service men. It seems to me that the Colonial Office, without consulting the House of Commons, extended the scheme to other than ex-service men some time in the Autumn, that they have begun to spend the money, and that they are now asking us to say, "Well, it is all right." I should like to know when exactly the scheme was developed from being an ex-service man's scheme into an all inclusive one, taking in other than ex-service men. I think we ought to know that, because here again I detect the growing tendency of the Departments to go to the Cabinet and to say, "Will you, the Cabinet, give us authority to extend a scheme which has been passed by the House of Commons; will you give us the authority to spend the money, and then we will come down to the House of Commons later, after we have begun to spend the money, and get them to approve the expenditure after it has been made." That, to my mind, is the fundamental danger of the whole financial system of the country. Surely there is great need to control the Executive Government of the day. In the thirteenth century the Executive Government was the King, and the King, before he could spend or get any money, was forced to consult Parliament. To-day the power of the Plan-taganet Kings is exercised by the Cabinet, and the first duty of every Member of the House of Commons is to control the Cabinet. That is our first function, and our first duty to the electors. The only way we can do that, and make sure that we do control the Executive, is through finance and through being quite certain that no money is spent by any Department on any service whatever until it has been first submitted to a Committee of Supply in this House. I very much question whether the Colonial Office followed the correct procedure in extending the ex-service men's scheme to other than ex-service men.
I want to know how far this scheme has been applied to the Crown Colonies. One realises that in dealing with Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand you are dealing in this matter of emigration with highly competent Dominion representatives who have had long experience in the work of emigration and the whole question of migration, and who
have been for many years most anxious to get men and women from the mother country to help them to develop their lands. These great self-governing Dominions have a tremendous machinery to assist in this work, and it is largely through them that it has been so successfully done. The Crown Colonies, however, are in a different position. I want to know if there is any money in this Vote in connection with British East Africa, now called Kenya Colony. From all I can hear, the Colonial Office scheme there has not been the success that it should have been, it has not been well managed, and considerable sums of money have been thrown away in that scheme. Apparently ex-service men were rushed out to Kenya Colony and told there was land available when that land had never been surveyed or, if it had been surveyed, had no water on it.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I am afraid that is not connected with this particular Vote.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am glad to hear it, but I hope that when these questions of overseas settlement are being dealt with, more care will be taken by the Colonial Office in cases where they are encouraging the settlement of Crown Colonies, to ensure that the same kind of care shall be taken as is taken by the Governments of the great self-governing Dominions.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure myself what is included in this Vote, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any information to give the Committee I hope he will give it.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I meant to say that while passages were concerned with all parts of the Empire and not to the Dominions only, this Vote is not concerned with actual settlement schemes in East Africa.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me if there are any Crown Colony settlements concerned in this Vote other than East Africa, whether this advance of £55,000 under Item C (3)—a rather ominous conjunction of letter and figure—has any application to other than settlers in Dominions?

Lieut. - Conel AMERY: My hon. Friend is not quite clear about the distinction between a settlement scheme, either in a Dominion or a Protectorate, which is one thing, and the grant of free passages to ex-service men. The grant to these men is to any part of the Empire, entirely irrespective of whether there is a settlement scheme or not. It is only a question of a free passage as a reward for War service to those who can show that they have got definite work to go to and are approved by the Government there. As regards C (3), it is special assistance arising out of the grave unemployment this winter, which is given to people who have something definite to go to, but who are just short of a little whether for their passage money, or for outfit, or for necessary money on landing. I do not think, except possibly in very isolated cases, that any of these would be going elsewhere than to the various Dominions, but there is no absolute rule on that.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I was misled by the footnote, as usual. These footnotes excite the appetite without quite satisfying it. Here it refers to a scheme which has been approved by the Government. I was no doubt confusing that with the Overseas Settlement scheme, but this I gather is purely £55,000 for all sorts and conditions of men as a temporary advance to tide them over difficulties on land. I think, as a matter of fact, it would be of great interest and value to the Committee if we knew exactly what the regulations and conditions were under which these grants are made. Frequently hon. Members get letters from constituents asking them what assistance can be given in this direction, and I personally, although I take considerable interest in Dominion matters, have never seen a copy of the regulations and conditions under which participation in this grant of £55,000 can be obtained. I think it would be of great service to all hon. Members if my hon. and gallant Friend could issue the conditions and the limitations under which grants under this heading are made. I do not wish in any way to oppose this extremely useful and valuable Vote, because I am sure that money spent in this way will redound in the ever-widening and strengthening of British power, and influence, and good health, and development throughout the world.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) deserved the severe castigation which was administered by my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I took my hon. Friend to mean that any efforts of this kind, admirable as they are, in my opinion, should not be used in any way to minimise our duties to those men who have served in the War at home. With regard to the general question, emigration from this country to our Dominions overseas and to our Crown Colonies has been one of the necessary factors of that common wealth of nations called the British Empire. That was checked during the War, and it is quite natural and, indeed, proper that the Colonial Office should at the very earliest moment set going again the machinery by which that beneficial and useful function of the British Empire should recommence to work as smoothly as possible. I should hope that there is no intention of His Majesty's Government, or of anybody who might be responsible in this country, to take any action which would make for other than the free choice of every man or woman to leave home for over the seas, but if they do what their forefathers have done with such great success in the past, and such advantage to the Empire generally and to themselves individually, and to the world—and, speaking as a Scotsman, I should be the last man in the world to depreciate the advantages to the Scotsman individually and the Empire generally of emigration from this country—

Sir F. BANBURY: They have filled all the offices here.

Sir D. MACLEAN: At the same time, the point made by my hon. Friend is one which every Scotsman feels, namely, that the conditions under which Scotsmen and Scotswomen have been living in Scotland have forced them to leave when they would much rather have stopped at home. I am sure we all welcome, as I certainly do, the proposals of the Colonial Office in this direction, and certainly this is one of the few Votes I do not propose to divide against. But there is one point upon which I would like to say a word rather more particularly, and that is the Vote for the Oversea Settlement of British women. As my hon. and gallant Friend said in
introducing the Vote, and I think my hon. Friend who has just spoken, there is no more difficult and delicate operation than that. Women, as we know, are subject to malicious and evil agencies in a way that men know nothing of, and the greatest care should be exercised when young women are offered opportunities of pursuing an honest livelihood beyond the seas. I am thoroughly glad that that difficult and delicate task is not to be undertaken solely by the State, and I am very glad indeed to notice that this Grant-in-Aid is to further the voluntary efforts which have hitherto been so quietly done, and, on the whole, so successfully done. The whole success of such a function as that depends on the spirit in which it is done—what is called the personal touch, the living sympathy, and the broad human understanding which you only get from voluntary effort. I do not say at all that the State official is devoid of those qualities, but you do not get it in the same way, and, so far as I am concerned, so long as there is careful and adequate supervision of this fund, I shall be very glad to see the necessity for that grant being increased. I think there are very few people in this country who know the devoted, self-denying, and public-spirited work that has been carried on by splendid women in this country for generations past. They have done untold services, not only to the individual, but to the general good of women citizens who have moved their place of residence within the Empire.
That is the way, on the whole, I should prefer to look at it, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend, who, I know, has very warm sympathies and broad understanding of this, will devote special care to it. I should be glad to know if he can tell the Committee, and through the Committee the public, some more details with regard to this, because, unhappily, the ravages of war have made the numerical difference between the sexes very much greater than it was before the War, and there are many young women, I am quite certain, who would seek a career in the Dominions beyond the seas if they were assured, and if their fathers and mothers or guardians were assured, of the care such a society as this has accorded, and does accord to them. I would ask my hon. Friend to tell us in more detail how that works. I have some
slight knowledge myself of how it works, but I am certain that more detailed information about the scheme would be very widely welcomed throughout the country. The assistance of free passages and so forth, I should hope, would be a less amount next year. I would urge my hon. and gallant Friend's Department to watch the shipping market pretty closely, because the passenger rates for conveyance of people from this country must inevitably show a marked decline in the next two or three months. If it does not, then there is something wrong about it, because the amount of tonnage not only for passengers but goods is far in excess of the demand. I hope full advantage will be taken by the Department of the decrease which must very soon make itself apparent in the freight market.

Sir J. D. REES: In spite of what my right hon. Friend opposite has said, I myself, like my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), am sincerely glad that the spirit which animated the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) is very sparsely represented in this House, and I hope in the country. I agree with my hon. Friend in thinking that those who leave the country, in the manner represented by this Vote, continue to be most useful citizens of the British Empire. I do not know that one need enlarge on that. It may be said of them, as the Roman poet said,
 Cœlum non animum mutant.
Wherever they are, they are citizens of the British Empire. I have myself an interest in this Vote. As regards the emigration of women under this scheme, perhaps it may be safe to say to-night that, as there is a surplusage of women in this country, it is desirable and beneficial to the British Empire that some should be emigrated under some such scheme, although I would rather not assume, like my right hon. Friend opposite, that there is any reason to suppose that in so doing they are liable to the wiles of unscrupulous men who lure them to their destruction. He spoke very feelingly about the good work done by those who prevent these disaster. I, on the contrary, hold higher ideals, and think that very few of my fellow-creatures entertain those ideas, and that these people hardly need the
protection which is said to be so valuable. I observe that under this Overseas Settlement Scheme warrant books were issued for free passages to the British Empire, including Rhodesia and "other destinations." I presume that "other destinations" include the Cinderella of the Protectorates—Nyassaland. If so, will my hon. and gallant Friend tell us about this Protectorate, which, unless I happen to mention it, is never mentioned in the House of Commons, although deserving of all the sympathy of hon. Members. How many people have been assisted with passages? Have they received grants of land, and, if so, how many? This would be exceedngly interesting to me as one who is interested in a company which has done a great deal in this direction on private lines.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. MYERS: The right hon. Gentleman informed the Committee that £150,000 in this Vote is to assist ex-service men and their dependants to settle overseas. What a sad reflection that is on our war time pronouncements to these men when they were asked to fight for their country. We are now taking steps to get them out of it with the utmost rapidity. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give the House information under the following heads: How many ex-service men have gone overseas under this scheme? What have been their destinations? What occupations have they gone out to undertake? How many of these men have been sent out to take up positions in private undertakings, and have Government funds been used to provide for these private undertakings the labour which they would otherwise have had to secure for themselves? As to the Vote under C2, I am afraid if the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) had not replied already to the hon. Member for Middlesbro' (Mr. T. Thomson) that I should have come under his strictures in the same way. I think it is a bad policy and a vicious principle for the Government to subsidise, a voluntary organisation for this purpose. When women emigrate, some agency should be ready to give them a measure of security in the country to which they go. But surely our Consular service might be of use in that direction. While the War may have created a disparity between the number of males and females in this country which may make it convenient for us to
get rid of a few, if I may use the expression of the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), I cannot subscribe to public money being used by a voluntary organisation to encourage the best of our women to leave this country when there is room for them here. At question time only to-day Members were expressing alarm because we are not able to secure a sufficient number of women for domestic service. The female population of the country simply will not have domestic service in these days. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot cry out about the need for domestics while assisting our women out of the country. If our women desire to emigrate we should let them go and endeavour to secure protection for them at their destination. But we ought not to provide a voluntary organisation with money to send them out. Under C1 and C3, there are items of £45,000 and £55,000 for assisting people other than ex-service men overseas, and the expression in the Vote is that this is "on account of and as a means of relieving abnormal unemployment." £100,000 in order to send people overseas to relieve abnormal unemployment. What a pill to cure an earthquake!
Just about the end of the War I remember a White Paper being issued containing the Report of a Committee recommending that financial assistance should be given to a particular type of people to go overseas. The report stated that there would probably be a large number of men drawn from office life in the Army who, when the War was over, would become tired of the humdrum of office life and would require settlement overseas. Has any portion of this £100,000 been spent for this purpose? I would join in the expression of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that the same opportunities for settlement are available in this country as can be secured overseas. If we look in the Board of Trade Gazette for this month or for any of the last few months, we see all the reports from our Colonies sounding a note of warning against the emigration of industrial artisans, and yet in view of that warning we are confronted with this item of £100,000 to relieve abnormal unemployment in this country. Reconstruction work in our own country could be embarked upon and would produce better
results with a greater measure of security to our unemployed men than they get with the purely speculative offers from overseas. When everything has been said in its favour that can be said, it is a mere expedient, and just to enable us to show that we are attempting to do something, though it will only touch the fringe of this great problem. In my judgment the whole principle and policy running through these three items is very largely unsound, and one that ought not to be recommended in this House.

Mr. R. McLAREN: I shall have very great pleasure in supporting this Vote. Like the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), I resent very strongly the remarks made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), because I think that in providing free passages overseas for ex-service men the Government have done a good thing. I have had something to do with getting free passages for these ex-service men and I want to compliment my right hon. Friend's office on its work in getting these men away. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough said it would be better to spend money in keeping the men at home to do good work here. But I shall tell the hon. Member a story which I think goes to the root of the matter. Why is it that so many of our good men leave this country when they might do good work here? A few months ago I met a man who is going abroad. He had been a good workman and had saved money, and I asked, "Why do you go abroad?" He answered, "It is like this. I have done good work during the War and I have made some money, but I find that I cannot get on if I stop in this country with the opposition I get as a competent workman from the trade unions." Hon. Members on the opposite side know that very often trades unions try to keep a capable man back from doing his best.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not dealing with the responsibilities of trades unions on this Vote.

Mr. McLAREN: I was simply bringing out the reason why men go abroad who could do very well in this country. What I want to say is this, that I think it is a good thing for the country that men who have done their bit in the War and find they cannot get on very well should be encouraged to go abroad and
do better in other countries, and for that reason I think the Government are to be congratulated upon supplying this sum of money to assist these people. So long as we can encourage these men to go abroad by assisting them with passages, I think it would be good not only for ourselves but for the countries to which they go. One thing I should like to say. It is not generally known among ex-service men that this assistance can be got. I have had communications from many men asking me for particulars, and I have been unable to tell them the facts. I think it would be a good thing if it were known to these men that they can apply to the Government and the Government will be glad to supply them with the means of getting abroad, and I shall certainly support very heartily this Vote if it goes to a Division.

Lieut-Commander WILLIAMS: First of all I would like to draw the attention of the House to a point which has been raised as regards the last Section of this Vote, namely, C.3. I think, and I am open to correction in this matter from the Colonial Under-Secretary, one of the main things which have been done under this Sub-section is that you have been faced in the West of England in Cornwall with a particularly bad cycle of unemployment, with a whole industry practically washed out, thanks to various causes, some of them on my right, and the Government has to my knowledge brought a very considerable help to enable these miners to go abroad and continue their work in other countries. I simply mention this fact because some criticism has been raised of the Ministry in this respect, and I would like to enable the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Front Bench to show quite clearly that this money for men other than ex-service men has been really given to people who thoroughly deserve their help and who will undoubtedly bring very great credit, not only to the country from which they have come, but to the whole British Empire to which every one of us belongs. There has been a tendency amongst various hon. Members in this Debate to talk as if men leaving one part of the British Empire and going to another were lost to us as a nation and Empire. I personally think that in a time like to-day the more you can get the Government to proceed along lines such as are
represented in this Vote, to encourage the free emigration of our own people to other parts of our own Empire, the better it will be for us as a whole. It is one of these cases in which very considerable care should be exercised to see that the right men go and that they go to the right places. I am perfectly convinced as far as the Government is concerned that they are using that influence, and I welcome very sincerely this effort on the part of the Government, not merely to help ex-service men, but where you have a peculiarly virulent form of unemployment, a form of unemployment which has brought very great distress out of all proportion to that in other parts of the country, I welcome the Government coming in and giving special help to men who are badly wanted throughout the Empire, and to the men who have done more to develop mining throughout the Empire than any other section.

Captain LOSEBY: I should not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers). I am one of those who think that the hon. Gentleman, speaking on special questions, contributes often very materially to these Debates, but I do not think he ought to take upon himself to speak for ex-service men. In the contribution that he made this evening I cannot help thinking he was rather mischievous. He has made the suggestion that the Government is not really doing a service to ex-service men in making this grant for colonisation purposes. During the War it often occurred to me that although the War had many terrible disadvantages it had one advantage, particularly to soldiers who served, that it did give some of us who had not previously the opportunity a chance of seeing that our future was not necessarily bounded by these little Islands; and I often felt that the Government would be neglecting an opportunity if it did not seize that experience and turn it to advantage. I think the speech of the hon. Gentleman was mischievous because he was inclined to suggest that the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies was trying to rid the Government of a burden. The hon. Member knows perfectly well he is doing nothing of the kind. There are no Members of this House, and very few in the country, who know the immensity of the possibili-
ties and the generous life which our Empire overseas presents better than the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, and it is because he knows full well that these men will not only be valuable citizens of the Empire, but will have greater possibilities of leading a fuller and more complete life than possibly we are able to afford some of them in this country—not because we do not want them here, but because we want to make an ample return—that this very wise move has been made. I do think it would be a pity to allow to go unchallenged the suggestion that this grant is being made for any other reason than that we want to give these men that opportunity. Nothing is further from the thought of the Government than any desire in this instance to rid themselves of a problem.

Mr. HURD: I am quite sure that anyone listening to this Debate, and comparing it with the sort of Debate we would have had in this House half a dozen years ago, will realise that a new spirit has come into British affairs in this regard. We should have had very different speeches and it is not too much to say, even after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers), that an entirely new spirit has come into these matters—the family spirit—and that there is a general feeling in this House, as the Prime Minister put it the other day, that when emigration takes place, and these men move to another part of the British Empire, they are not moving to a foreign land; they are moving to a land where British institutions prevail, and where they may enjoy the same measure of freedom as in this country if not a greater one. I would especially appeal to my hon. Friends on behalf of the ex-soldiers. I am not going into the question of trade unionism, but we all know that ex-soldiers are finding great difficulty in getting into certain Trade Unions, and I do ask hon. Members to do nothing to bar the way that may be opened for these men overseas. The other day I was in a Sussex village and in the church porch saw a Roll of Honour with 30 names upon it. Six of them were of soldiers who had gone from that village and settled in Canada, and they had fought in the War in Canadian battalions. I think that is a practical illustration of how this emigration does minister to the strength of the British
Empire, and I am sure hon. Members above the Gangway do not desire to impede that movement.
One hon. Member who has spoken said that any man who would do well abroad would also do well here. I wish he could see how a number of Somerset men who found no chance at all here have found in Canada an entirely new outlook. When I was in Canada a few months ago, a garden party was given by one of the leading citizens, and I met a man who spoke with a strong West Country accent, and I discovered that four years ago he was a working under-gardener in the Frome Division; to-day he is superintendent of parks of that important Canadian University city. That is only one of a thousand illustrations of men who had an impeded career here and have found a new career overseas. Take the town of Frome which I represent. Men went out from Somerset to Ontario a hundred years ago and carved homes for themselves out of the forest. They made the town of Frome, Ontario, and are now a strength to the Empire. Especially at this moment of unemployment do not let us shut this window to the unemployed. A man who is unemployed is never hopeless while we have these lands overseas offering him an entirely new chance under British conditions.
In the answer which the Under-Secretary gave me in the House to-day, he said that our financial co-operation with the Dominions must be dependent on the extent to which they carry out settlement schemes. May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it is desirable that those settlement schemes should concern themselves with women emigrants as well as men. We know, during the War, how excellently many women did on the land and in other outdoor and industrial occupations. Many of them now have no hope here whatever, but the hon. Gentleman in his conferences with the representatives of the Overseas Governments might encourage them to develop group settlement schemes for women in poultry farming, dairying, and agricultural pursuits, and, if necessary, the women could be trained on experimental farms in this country or in such Dominions as Canada. I ask the hon. Gentleman to invite the Dominion representatives whom he meets to think out with him this problem of the settlement of women. Women have worked on the land and in our munition
factories, and very many opportunities would arise for them overseas if they were only given a chance. I desire to join with other speakers in congratulating the country as well as the House of Commons on the fact that we have as guide in this matter a Minister with so broad an outlook.

Sir F. BANBURY: I listened with some surprise to the speech of the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) when he was dealing with that portion of the Vote which provides for ex-service men to go abroad, and opposing it on the ground that those men when they fought in the War did not do so with the idea that they would have to go to some distant parts of the Empire. I would remind him that these men did not fight for England alone; they fought for the whole Empire. Where would the rest of the Empire have been if the men had not fought for it as a whole. Does the hon. Gentleman think it would have been advisable to surrender our Colonies in order to obtain terms of peace? I am sorry the hon. Gentleman took up that attitude. He raised another objection and in so doing I hope he expressed the opinions of hon. Members who sat around him. He objected to State subsidies to private concerns. There I agree with him. He objected to a State subsidy to a society sending people abroad because it was a private concern. I presume he also objects to subsidies to trade unions from the State. If so there again we are agreed, and if he can give me an undertaking that he and those with whom he always votes are against the granting of State subsidies to any private society of any kind, then I shall be happy to support him in the Division Lobby on this occasion.

Mr. SWAN: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £50,000.
I cannot associate myself with the last part of the right hon. Baronet's speech. Many of my colleagues think that if it was not for the great subsidies that are taken by individuals out of Labour there would be no need to discuss such a Vote as this for sending the best of our man power out of our country into other lands, as there then would be more wealth available here to develop home industries and provide productive employment for men and women to their own advantage and that of the whole nation. The hon. Member for Stafford
(Mr. Ormsby-Gore) and others associated with him, seemed to approach this question in a spirit of levity, as if many of the unemployed would look upon emigration as a joy-ride. I can assure them that many who heard the proposition of the hon. Gentleman then thought that it was a strange commentary upon their great sacrifices. He again suggests tonight, though with more reserve, that only the best will be sent out of this country. I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), namely, that we cannot afford to send out of this country the best of our men. There is work to be done at home, and, with co-ordination in our Government Departments, there would be abundance of scope in this land for schemes whereby men could be employed. The Prime Minister suggested a few weeks ago that there were very many possibilities for the employment of ex-service men on the land, producing food for which to-day we are dependent upon other countries, without going to Australia or Canada. The resources of Ireland are lying dormant and undeveloped, because of the unwise policy which our Government is pursuing, and I am sure that, if a little attention were given to the resources of Ireland, all the men out of work in this country to-day could be employed there. We were promised that our railway system should be developed, so that land which is out of cultivation because it is inaccessible might be utilised. That expensive Department, the Ministry of Transport, is prevented from functioning in that work, while we are spending more money on emigration than the Minister has the opportunity of spending. I know that in Queensland, where a Labour Government is in office, they are looking ahead and taking the long view. They are doing in that country what we ought to do here, namely, constructing railways, and seeking to harness rivers, and they are utilising all their trained men for that purpose. In England we have skilled engineers and others who could be employed at home, but, as an hon. Member on these Benches suggested, the landlords are preventing that. The landlords are preventing us from utilising the men whom we have trained, and the Government ought to see that opportunities are given for the utilisation of those men's powers.

Mr. HOHLER: On a point of Order! I have been trying to follow the hon. Member, but I feel bound to ask whether his remarks are relevant?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is raising a good many controversial questions, but I was hoping that he was coming to the end of his speech.

Mr. SWAN: I am suggesting the folly of encouraging our men to put thousands of miles between them and England, men whom we really need at home, and it would be better if the Government set themselves to work to carry out their reconstruction schemes so as to make this a land fit for heroes.

Major ENTWISTLE: I do not rise to support the Amendment, much as I am often associated with Members of the Labour party. I support the objects and purposes of this Vote, but I deprecate very strongly the reasons which are given for it, namely, that these grants have been made for the purpose of relieving unemployment. I think that is an unsound reason to give for encouraging our men to go overseas. After all, it is simply raking up the old Malthusian doctrine which I thought everyone now recognised to have been exploded as a fallacy, even though it has had a recent adherent in the celebrated H. G. Wells. When hon. Members advocate emigration, as the Prime Minister did, to relieve unemployment, which is tantamount to advocating this old exploded doctrine, can we be surprised that the working man in this country is tempted to restrict production for the same purpose of avoiding unemployment? I hope that point will not be emphasised by the Minister as it is stated in this Vote, and which is the main reason he gives for it for relieving unemployment, because in my opinion it is unsound and is the worst reason that can be given. At the same time I strongly deprecate the insinuation which has been made, I am afraid by some hon. Members around me, that it is banishing our men to send them to the Colonies or that it is anything in the nature of a disgrace or an imposition that our men should go to the Colonies. I never could understand the type of mind that thinks it is the finest thing in the world to live in this country and that to go to the Colonies is something in the nature of a mere avenue for one who has totally failed in this country. When one con-
siders the conditions under which we live here, of course we are a great old country with a long fine tradition, but at the same time with hampering influences, and environments, and cliques, and conventions, and difficulties that are cast in our way, and here we have our Colonies. We saw the type of man who fought for us in France. It is a great life there where there is freedom of opportunity and, what is much more important, freedom in the social amenities of life of which we are so much deprived in this country. We, as Liberals, of course, advocate the removal of these social restrictions and barriers. There is no such party as Tories in Australia. By all means let us give every assistance and support to the encouragement of emigration. We are proud of our Empire, and I am in favour of the Vote, because I think it is a fine thing that this fine, open, grand, free life out in the Colonies should obtain but I resent the reasons which have been given, that it is to relieve unemployment and the men who now cannot get any opening, the failures, because even as a temporary expedient in these abnormal times the reason is a bad one. There is no question that the causes of the present unemployment are worldwide, and that the trade depression which applies to this country applies just as much to the Colonies. It is not the way to relieve the present abnormal unemployment, which is due to world-wide depression, to send them to the Colonies, where they will find that they will be unemployed, but I do think that we ought to encourage emigration for the wider and more important reasons which I have given.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I should like to clear up, if I can, a misapprehension which seems to be in the mind of the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Major Entwistle), which possibly may be caused by the form in which the footnote to the Estimate appears. Free passages for ex-service men have nothing whatever to do with unemployment. They are one of the rewards which this country has given to ex-service men. It has given them many other rewards. In the words of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, these men not only fought for these islands, but for the whole of our great Empire, for the whole of the great structure of civilisation and liberty which
is represented by that Empire, and the Government felt that these men should not be precluded by want of actual passage money from taking advantage of any opportunities that offered themselves either through private sources or through the settlement schemes of the overseas Governments. That reward is given to them without regard to whether they are unemployed or not.
A second point is that in the winter when unemployment became very serious here, the Government appointed a Committee to go very carefully into the measures for the relief of unemployment. Those measures have fructified and have been put before the House. They are very large measures, and, I hope, measures that will really alleviate a very serious situation. In any case they are measures involving many millions of money. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for the Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) in saying that to try to cure a great unemployment crisis by asking people to go overseas would indeed be a small pill to cure an earthquake. There is no question of looking to overseas settlement or emigration as an immediate cure for the unemployment situation, but from the experience we have got in the administration of the fund set aside by the National Relief Fund we knew of a certain number of people, not very many, but undoubtedly deserving cases, who were unemployed or had suffered hardship owing to the War, or who were in precarious employment, and who only wanted a little assistance in order that they might get definite and assured means of livelihood with relations or friends or from other sources they knew of in the Dominions. These cases we learned about by careful inquiry from unemployment committees, from the High Commissioners' Offices, and in some cases from private societies. I shall be delighted to send the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) the regulations in accordance with which we secure a careful sifting of these cases before even the small grant, which only amounts to £10, £20, or £30 is given. I entirely agree that regarded as a cure for unemployment this is a very small thing, but it is not a small thing for the individuals to whom it means relief from anxiety about unemployment here and comparative prosperity and success on the other
side. Something like 80 per cent. of the people who got assisted passages had either been out of employment or at least their going relieved indirectly the employment situation. To that extent—I do not want to put it the least bit higher—we claim that even from the point of view of the unemployment situation this particular measure, costing a very small amount of money, has been of real use.
The right hon. Member for Peebles, in a sympathetic speech, asked for a little further information about the work of the Society for Oversea Settlement of British Women. I agree entirely with what he said about the devoted labours given by many women without pay and solely with the desire to help their fellow women in this country through the various committees and societies. One of the reasons why instead of setting up a woman's department of the Oversea Settlement Committee with a large paid staff is that a small grant given to a society like that is of great value to the country, as we get such an immense volume of unpaid work, in many cases better work than any paid work could be, because it is a labour of love. They take the trouble to interview carefully every applicant for a passage. They go into the record, and find out if she is suitable, write the necessary letters, see that the applicants get into touch with the Dominion Governments here, see that with each party there is a woman acting as a guide, write ahead before the woman goes out to other societies in Canada, Australia, and South Africa, and tell all about the woman who is going out, and what her qualifications are, and after she has got out they keep in close touch with her by correspondence to make sure that she does not get into difficulties. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend that woman is a more delicate plant to transplant from one part of the Empire to another than man, but there is nothing more needed than women of our stock and traditions in our great Dominions, and there is a great desire for them. The last thing we would think of trying to do is to push the women of this country out to the Dominions. Our one desire is to select the best of those who are suitable for going overseas. It is not numbers but quality that is desired. What we want to make sure is that the
right women go to the right places, and succeed when they get there.
The Committee will be interested to hear the actual figures of those who have gone to the different Dominions under the ex-service scheme since it was started in 1919, 16,000 odd to Canada; 12,000 odd to Australia; nearly 8,000 to New Zealand; 3,000 odd to South Africa; 376 to Rhodesia; 526 to Kenya Colony, and in spite of the great economic difficulties in that Colony the majority of those settlers promise to do well in the end; and 780 to various other destinations, including that beautiful little country Nyassaland, in which my hon. Friend (Sir J. D. Rees) is so interested. In all, some 40,000 have gone—men, women and dependants. I wish it to be made quite clear that we do not encourage, and do not allow, a man or woman to emigrate under this scheme who is not first approved by the representative of the Oversea Government concerned as a desirable settler and as a person for whom there is assured work waiting. Whole classes of industrial workers who fulfilled the actual service conditions have been systematically rejected by Canada on those grounds, though many have gone at their own expense, and so have swelled the unemployment statistics of that country. We have taken anxious precautions to see that no one should get this gift to whom it would not be a benefit. We do not want the gift to be an injury to a single man or woman. In a few cases have we heard of failure, and I am glad to say that in the majority of cases of that kind I do not think the failure could be attributed so much to the conditions as to defects on the part of the settlers themselves. We have tried all through to use selection and, in the language of the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), to introduce the personal element. The case of every one of these people is inquired into. Each one gets a personal interview and a personal letter. They are encouraged to write to us after they have gone, and the perusal of some of their letters, I may say, is one of the most encouraging things I have met with in this work during the past two years. I do not know whether it would try the patience of the Committee too much to read one or two extracts from the letters. Here is a letter from the secretary of one of the local branches of the National Association of Discharged
Sailors and Soldiers, not always a body over-friendly to the Government. He says:
I am more than obliged for your personal interest, assistance and advice. As one who has had a large number of dealings on behalf of our members, I would like to congratulate you on the up-to-date and businesslike way in which your deal with the enormous number of cases coming daily before you. Nothing is left undone by you and your staff to be helpful. I am satisfied from my own observation and experience that you are working for the benefit of our members. … I think it right to give honour where honour is due.
From Western Australia a man writes:
I owe my present happy circumstances to the Committee, and I take this opportunity of thanking you once more for the kindly start you gave me. I shall always endeavour to prove a worthy citizen and a worthy ex-service man.
Another writes from Western Australia:
Here there is room for thousands who are not afraid of hard work.
A correspondent from Canada writes
I am enjoying my new home. It is a very nice land for men not afraid of work. For them Canada is an ideal place.
Another writes:
I have bettered myself in every way. I have saved more money in two months than I should have saved in six months at home.
Another extract is:
Heartfelt thanks for the help you gave me.
A lady writes—and with this I shall conclude:
Australia is just glorious. There is only one fly in the ointment: They use the 'Hymnal Companion' in the churches instead of the 'Ancient and Modern.'
In concluding I would like to say a few words on the point raised by the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson), Spen Valley (Mr. Myers), and others. We do not want to push men to leave this country, but there are men going to leave this country in hundreds of thousands. They did so before the War, and the restless spirit of the race will move them to do so again. What we want is that those should go who are fit to go, and that those who are not fit should be discouraged from going. Lots of men who have been induced by advertisements to go, would have been far better advised to have stayed at home. Many a man who will do well at home will never do well in the Dominions. Many a man who cannot find his peg here at home
finds it almost at once there. What we want to do is not to push people out of this country, but to give them advice and counsel, and to make sure that the right man goes to the right place, and that if they do go they should go to the British Empire rather than to foreign countries. I quite understand the patriotism of my hon. Friends opposite, but I would urge them to interpret it in a wider as well as a narrower sense. If the men who had gone to Canada and Australia and New Zealand had felt their patriotism in the same narrow sense as was expressed by hon. Members, if their only thought had been for their own particular country and not for the Empire, would those hundreds of thousands have come thousands of miles to fight on the fields of France? That does bring home the fact that there has been no loss, and that they are part of the strength of the British Empire. We have to deal with great problems of defence, and on the seas we may have to maintain a strength of armaments which will be beyond our capacity, but not beyond the capacity of the Empire if every part does its share.
More than that, the men who go to other parts of the British Empire offer the best markets that this country has. The Dominions are our best purchasers; every man who goes to Dominions buys, on the average, 20 times as much from us as the man who goes to a friendly country like the United States. That will tell on the employment and the numbers of the population of this country. I would ask my hon. Friends to think of this. Would there be room for more people in this country if there were not 15,000,000 people in the Dominions at present? Is it not a fact that the market which these 15,000,000 offer supports millions in this country, and that that market would never have existed if the fathers and the grandfathers of those people in the Dominions had not left this country? So far from diminishing the population of this country, migration to the Dominions in the long run increases it and strengthens the economic position of this country. Therefore it gives better opportunities for making happier homes here than otherwise would be the case. From that point of view, I earnestly appeal to my hon. Friends. When they say that this is driving the best men away from
England, I would ask them to remember that "the best" is a very relative term. It is not only a question of the best in blood, but in condition and chances and circumstances. The War showed how splendid the average of our country was; and I believe that people who are called "not the best" in this country are very often so only because they have not had an opportunity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I heartily agree with my hon. Friends. I think that if one man goes and creates a place for another that that other man may become a better man than if he had no chance; and that if the man who finds no opening here goes overseas and gets a chance, he becomes a better man, and his children get a better chance. I believe most sincerely and earnestly that a wise policy of developing the resources of the Empire, the spreading of our population, not by forcing people abroad, but by wise selection and co-operation between the Governments, is by far the best thing for the strength and prosperity of this country and every part of the Empire.

Dr. MURRAY: I come from a part of the country on which this Vote has a very strong bearing, for there is no part of the country that has provided more men for the Colonies than the Highlands of Scotland, and if I thought there was anything in the nature of forced emigration under this scheme I would not touch it with a telegraph pole, but I look upon this scheme as a very beneficent scheme. I would force no man to go to the Colonies, but if an ex-service man thinks he can do better for himself by going to the Colonies than he can do at home, I think it is the duty of the Government to help him. It is in that spirit that if this goes to a Division I must support the Vote.

Mr. SWAN: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to call attention to the question of the examinations that have been forced on many of the temporary employés in Government offices, a matter affecting many hundreds. They are now unable to learn from the Civil Service Commissioners what their fate is to be, whether they have passed the examination or not. Many of these women have entered into this examination in good faith, and are unable to learn the result of the examination, and I think the Government have treated them extremely shabbily. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will have these women's anxiety removed.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am looking into that question.

NATIONAL DEBT OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Debt Office.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.

Committee report Progress, to sit again to-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ROYAL NAVY.

CAPITAL SHIPS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Sir R. Sanders.]

11.0 P.M.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Referring to the question I asked the Prime Minister at Question Time to-day as to the Naval policy in the coming year, I desire to draw the attention of the House to this most important matter, and my objects are twofold—first, to endeavour to persuade the Government to announce a decision which may save the country millions in ensuing years; and, secondly, if I may be permitted to do so, to create a greater
interest among the Members of the House in good time before any Naval Vote comes before them. This matter is of such great international importance, and of such importance to the taxpayer, that I make no apology to those members who have been good enough to stop at this late hour for drawing attention to the subject. I beg the House to believe me when I say that in anything I may argue presently, I have always before me the fundamental fact that on the strength and efficiency of the Navy there depend mainly the safety, honour and the welfare of this Empire. There has been a Sub-committee of the Imperial Defence Committee considering recently the question of, I understand, battleships or battle cruiser building. I understand they have been considering it from a political and from a technical point of view. I do not wish to touch on the technical side at all, except to say that I am a confirmed believer in the supremacy of the surface ship and of the gun in naval warfare, but, as regards the political aspect of the case, I think it is high time we had a decision and announced it to the world.
This is a very critical moment, having regard to the naval programmes of other countries, and if we could announce a decision now which showed we were not going to start rivalry and competition in battleship building, it might save the country hundreds of millions in future years, and possibly, as an hon. Gentleman says, from war. But whatever decision the Government come to, I trust they will take the country at once into their confidence, let it know what their decision is, and give their reasons for it. I trust there will be no secrecy, no stealthy building of ships, and things of that sort, but that they will declare their policy courageously and boldly so that the world will know what we are going to do. We have only two other countries to consider—the United States and Japan. I am fully alive to our alliance with Japan and our Treaty with the United States; but it is as well for the House to remember that those Treaties are liable to come to an end, and that there are no less than five different combinations, or rather, sets of circumstances, which may arise as between the three Navies. I do not wish to enter into that at the present time; it would take far too long;
but I will put one set of circumstances. Supposing that we resorted to war with the States, which God forbid, but it is always possible—we have been at war before—and supposing that Japan, seeing her opportunity whilst we two were at war, proposed to step in and expand, as she wishes to do. What would be the attitude of the two English-speaking nations towards that threat? That is only one set of circumstances which has to be considered. Whatever circumstances arise, the strategical aspect of the case bulks very largely as regards finance, and for this reason that if we build these huge battleships, costing £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 each, possibly, we shall have not only to keep and maintain attendant flotillas but we shall have to build bases overseas for them to work from. We shall have to develop at great cost at Halifax, Bermudas and Jamaica, and we shall have to go into the Pacific and find new bases on the West coast of Canada. We shall have to found a new Rosyth on the west coast of Canada, probably at Prince Rupert; Esquimalt and Vancouver are untenable against modern attack by gun or aircraft. We shall require another base somewhere in the neighbourhood of Port Moresby in New Guinea, and we shall have to develop Singapore into another Rosyth. Although we have secured these huge floating docks from Germany, it would land the country in an enormous bill for docks, coaling stations, oiling stations, ammunition depots and every imaginable thing necessary for battleship bases. And even if we had these bases it is questionable in my mind whether we could use battleships at all. For this reason, that the distances in the Pacific and Atlantic are so enormous. Japan is building as many battle cruisers as she is battleships, and I believe that for the reason that she appreciates what great distances these craft have got to move over. I desire to emphasise that point and bring it home to the House that in addition to the battleships themselves we have got to spend enormous sums of money on the bases which are essential for warlike operations if we are going to use these battleships.
We started in the old Dutch wars with bases in Deptford Creek, and after spreading all over the world ended up during the War with Germany with bases
at Scapa Flow, Invergorden, and Rosyth. It shows how bases change their position, and there is no question that we shall have to build enormous bases in the Pacific, Caribbean and China Seas. I do not intend to-night to refer to the actual building programmes of these other countries. It is impossible to do it in the time. But I have obtained an answer from the Admiralty to a question I put the other day as to what were the actual facts as to the building of ships by the United States and by Japan. I am not going to enter into this, but I am satisfied of this: After examining this statement I say emphatically there is no occasion for us to lay down any battleships in this next financial year. Naturally this has been discussed by the naval advisers of the Imperial Defence Committee, and undoubtedly it must have been discussed by this Sub-Committee which has been sitting, and I think it is high time this Sub-Committee, if they have not already done so, should come to a conclusion on the subject, and that the Government should announce a decision which I hope is that which I have put before the House.
There is another aspect to which I am anxious to draw attention. In his speech from the Throne His Majesty referred to our friendly relations with foreign Powers. Thank God it is so Do not let us jeopardise that happy state of affairs by any foolish and provocative action on our part by initiating or even entering into rivalry and competition with these other countries. If there is to be any such iniquity and wickedness perpetrated, let the reproach of it lie with them and not with us. That is the moral side of the question. Let me refer to the practical side. What this country wants is not battleships. It wants five years of steady devotion to the propagation of industry, a reduction of taxation, of the setting of our house in order, and not of building battleships and bases. Any money which is spent in the next five years should be confined to an Army, a Navy, and an air force of the smallest possible limits and to research; experiment and research, so that when we do enter upon a programme of capital ships—I do not say battleships, for no one really knows what the capital ship of the future will be—we shall ensure that these ships will not become obsolete in the course of a few years as ships have been doing recently. It will give us an opportunity to further investigate the proper positions for our bases in the
foreign seas and of getting them ready for these ships.
It may shock the House to know that in respect of design in many points we were behind the Germans in 1914. In the safety of our ships against torpedoes our design was behind that of the Germans. The Germans in point of accuracy of their guns were superior to us and in point of armour-piercing shells they were distinctly ahead of us. That affected our naval operations very seriously. I want money spent on research and experiment to clear up all these points before we start building new ships.
I desire to draw the attention of the House to the contribution of the Overseas Dominions and our other Possessions towards the upkeep of the Imperial Navies—not the British Navy only, for there is an Australian Navy, a New Zealand Navy and a Canadian Navy, or there should be. Hitherto, in my opinion, the Overseas Dominions have not done half enough in this respect, excepting perhaps Australia and little New Zealand. In round figures there are 16,000,000 white British people in these overseas Dominions as against 48,000,000 in this country, and on that basis the overseas Dominions ought to contribute a fourth of the cost of the Navy. But perhaps the fairer way to arrive at the proportion of the overseas Dominions is the volume of trade. I do not want to go into details, but in 1913 the volume of trade of our overseas Dominions and Possessions was no less than £890,000,000. The overseas trade of our own United Kingdom was £1,400,000,000. Included in these two figures there is £500,000,000 of inter-trade between ourselves and the Dominions. On that basis, I think the overseas Dominions and our other Possessions should contribute nearly two-fifths of the cost of the Navies, including the Australian Navy and so on. But even in regard to Australia, let them consider their responsibility. They cry for a white Australia; what does that mean? It means a Navy in Australian waters comparable, at least, to that of Japan. The Australian Navy at present is insignificant compared with Japan's, but the responsibility for that lies with Australia. India, which did £327,000,000 of trade in 1913, has a small India Marine, but contributes mighty little to the Navy Estimates. The Navy of Canada is a lamentable failure.
The contribution of South Africa is ridiculous, having regard to their trade. The West Indies, the East Indies, Mauritius; and Hong Kong, from which a tremendous trade flows overseas, contribute nothing at all, and the sooner this matter is considered the sooner it will relieve our finances.
Apart from the iniquity of any competition in this matter with the United States, we cannot afford to enter into that competition unless our Dominions pay their fair contribution towards the cost. It would be foolish for us to enter into such a competition, because they are far richer, and they would soon leave us behind if they wished, nor do I for one moment believe that they wish it.
In conclusion, I wish to say that, after carefully considering the shipbuilding programmes of foreign countries, the moral aspect of the case, and, having regard to the necessity for retrenchment, I deprecate most strongly any battleship being included in the coming programme. There is an old adage that a stitch in time saves nine. A stitch in the shape of a declaration that we are not going to build any ships this year may save the country hundreds of millions in the ensuing year.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): All that I can say is that I gather that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is anxious to have some statement of the Estimates for the coming year. May I remind him and the House that probably on Wednesday week the Estimates will be introduced in the ordinary way. After the preliminary of moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, the customary statement will be made, and under these circumstances my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that it would be premature, and also improper, to anticipate the statement to be then made by giving any information in advance. I gather that the hon. and gallant Member's object in raising this question was to throw out suggestions which might influence the decisions to which we shall have to come. The views of service Members are always most welcome to myself and the Admiralty generally. May I first point out that when it comes to asking me to make a preliminary statement to-night, in face of the statement by
the Leader of the House on two occasions, that the Cabinet decision, when arrived at, on the Report of the Committee of Imperial Defence would be conveyed to the House of Commons, when the Speaker would be moved out of the Chair, I think my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that it would be quite impossible for me to say more than that the remarks he has made will be carefully perused with a view to assisting us in any decision that we may come to.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: There is one point which may lead to
some misapprehension with regard to the present building programme. America is building 16 capital ships and Japan 6. The idea seems to be that it is only post-Jutland ships that will be of any use to us, but I believe the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree with me that our ships, with 13.5- and 15-inch guns, with the necessary modifications, are fully equal to the latest ships laid down by foreign Powers.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one minute after Eleven o'clock.